Are we getting the PE we were led to believe was on the horizon during the KS?

[PrimeJunta]

I disagree. I would consider a game that has an objectively and universally best party composition almost as flawed as a game that had an objectively best character build.

 

I'd like it best if that was situational too. Have some situations that would be easiest for a diverse party, and other situations that would be easiest for, say, an all-rogue party. Situational effectiveness and a variety of situations, again.

[SymbolicFrank]

I disagree. I would consider a game that has an objectively and universally best party composition almost as flawed as a game that had an objectively best character build.

 

I'd like it best if that was situational too. Have some situations that would be easiest for a diverse party, and other situations that would be easiest for, say, an all-rogue party. Situational effectiveness and a variety of situations, again.

 

That's what I meant as well. But thanks for explaining it better.

[Stun]

 

 

So, who would win in melee: a fighter wearing light armor and using a dagger, against a mage wearing full plate and swinging a claymore?

The fighter. Unless we're talking 3e D&D and higher, where an armored mage can cast spells.

 

 

They can both cast spells.

 

Well, that's a pretty significant piece of information there. One that changes everything, because if both can cast spells then this "duel" is no longer Fighter vs. mage. It's now Fighter/Mage vs. Mage. Edited August 10, 2013 by Stun

[Tsuga C]

A huge failing of the AD&D IE games...

I don't see anyone here advocating a carbon copy of 1E, but when J. Sawyer thinks that high CHR fighters should be as viable over the long haul as high STR fighters in fulfilling their role as fighters, that's over-the-top gamey. Being witty, physically attractive, and having a pleasant speaking and/or singing voice has little to do with crushing a kneecap with a hammer, loosing an arrow, or decapitating someone with your hand-and-a-half sword. Until such time as he cares to elaborate and de-mystify P:E attributes, I'm sticking by my original grognardish conclusion.

 

...my 19/19/19/3/18/17 Paladin (eventually Cavalier) was exceptionally powerful with virtually no weakness.  Talk about "gamey" experiences that compromise verisimilitude.

I've quite literally never made a character with a preposterously low score like your moronic Pal/Cav. I sincerely hope such nonsense isn't possible in P:E. Should it turn out to be possible to create such an insipid, gamey character, I hope equally that it's an unplayable character that can't interact with others verbally or in written format. Hell, a Border Collie should be brighter than that... 

Edited August 10, 2013 by Tsuga C

[Stun]

Well, The IE games allowed for that kind of build, but good luck finding any halfway decent DM of any pen and paper D&D campaign that would. a Paladin with 3 INT cannot logically have a moral code. He would not be able to understand the laws of any society, let alone the strict tenets that rule a Paladin Order and its patron deity.

 

It'd be like this:

 

Prelate Gordrad: Egbert! Why did you kill that priest of Helm!?

Egbert the Aspiring Paladin: Me hungry!

Edited August 10, 2013 by Stun

[SymbolicFrank]

 

 

 

So, who would win in melee: a fighter wearing light armor and using a dagger, against a mage wearing full plate and swinging a claymore?

The fighter. Unless we're talking 3e D&D and higher, where an armored mage can cast spells.

 

 

They can both cast spells.

 

Well, that's a pretty significant piece of information there. One that changes everything, because if both can cast spells then this "duel" is no longer Fighter vs. mage. It's now Fighter/Mage vs. Mage.

 

 

It's probably more like "fighter/mage/thief/cleric" against "mage/fighter/thief/cleric", with different specializations.

Edited August 10, 2013 by SymbolicFrank

[jethro]

I don't see anyone here advocating a carbon copy of 1E, but when J. Sawyer thinks that high CHR fighters should be as viable over the long haul as high STR fighters in fulfilling their role as fighters, that's over-the-top gamey. Being witty, physically attractive, ..

 

Since the only thing about the attributes of PE we know is that they are different from the attributes of D&D I can guarantee you that you will not be able to make a high, low or any value CHR fighter. Whether the new attributes make sense, only Obsidian knows (yet)

[PrimeJunta]

It's probably more like "fighter/mage/thief/cleric" against "mage/fighter/thief/cleric", with different specializations.

This contradicts what JES has previously said, namely, that most fighter abilities are non-magical and a completely non-magical fighter is an entirely viable build. But we will see when we will see. Personally, I'll be very surprised (and disappointed) if the P:E team turns out to be so incompetent that they don't get character/class differentiation.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

So, who would win in melee: a fighter wearing light armor and using a dagger, against a mage wearing full plate and swinging a claymore?

The fighter. Unless we're talking 3e D&D and higher, where an armored mage can cast spells.

With a 45% chance of failure if the spell has somatic components. Although I suppose the outcome would be determined more by level, build, and equipment(what type of enchantment and material).

 

 

A huge failing of the AD&D IE games...

 

I don't see anyone here advocating a carbon copy of 1E, but when J. Sawyer thinks that high CHR fighters should be as viable over the long haul as high STR fighters in fulfilling their role as fighters, that's over-the-top gamey. Being witty, physically attractive, and having a pleasant speaking and/or singing voice has little to do with crushing a kneecap with a hammer, loosing an arrow, or decapitating someone with your hand-and-a-half sword. Until such time as he cares to elaborate and de-mystify P:E attributes, I'm sticking by my original grognardish conclusion.

I don't think we know if Sawyer thinks that, seeing as Charisma is not a confirmed attribute in PE. Also, Charisma is easily the most useless attribute for any class who doesn't have an ability that is fueled by it. A more appropriate example would be a high Wisdom fighter, which with a Feat like Zen Archery is a very viable archer.

[Lady Evenstar]

However, the examples discussed were all things which can be improved upon.

Someone who is an expert at DND (2, 3.5) would have had no problem playing IE games, but anyone without that background would have been baffled by some of the things which were or weren't possible.

When I first played baldurs gate aged 13, I didn't know anything about DnD, other than "geeks dress up in weird costumes and play it"

I probably knew less than you about D&D and didn't need to know more. It was all in the delicious spiral-bound manuals that shipped IE game boxes.

 

The main thing I worry about is that the game will be too punitive. The Infinity Engine games offered the player a lot of latitude to settle on a playstyle that was enjoyable for them. It would be awfully easy to root out the fun along with opportunities for degenerate behavior.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Lady Evenstar

[IndiraLightfoot]

Agreed. The game should integrate great leniency towards a plethora of playstyles, especially non-optimized variants. The difficulty slider and the ironman mode should whet the appetite of those who seek a harder take on the game. A broad latitude for party composition will be especially important. If a player wants to build a party with six monks, it should be possible to finish the game that way, although it should be a bit harder, and especially for certain encounters. Even going solo should be taken into consideration, but that's just my opinion.

[Lephys]

Obsidian have 18 months to create a cRRPG with two cities and a 15-level megadungeon, and in this thread you have people worrying about the systems and mechanics, as opposed to the content.

 

It's not Josh Sawyer and his ruleset you should be worried about. You should be worried about getting a final product that's buggy and/or incomplete.

 

 

Sure, sure. I'll start worrying about that just as soon as I'm done with more eminent baseless worries, like "Are meteorites going to collide with my head today?", or "Is my lunch 37 days from now going to fall onto the floor/ground before I get a chance to eat it?"

 

I mean, I don't know what Josh Sawyer and team are capable of in 18 months, but I should definitely be worrying about their inability to make a game with their own resources and decisions, according to their own design/budget/schedule, if anything.

 

What we definitely shouldn't worry about? The possibility that they might actually be competent and succeed at their goal. That would just be silly.

 

Forget half, even, since we don't know the amount. We know that Obsidian's filling a glass. Let's go ahead and call the glass partially empty, rather than partially full.

[J. Trudel]

 

Obsidian have 18 months to create a cRRPG with two cities and a 15-level megadungeon, and in this thread you have people worrying about the systems and mechanics, as opposed to the content.

 

It's not Josh Sawyer and his ruleset you should be worried about. You should be worried about getting a final product that's buggy and/or incomplete.

 

 

Sure, sure. I'll start worrying about that just as soon as I'm done with more eminent baseless worries, like "Are meteorites going to collide with my head today?", or "Is my lunch 37 days from now going to fall onto the floor/ground before I get a chance to eat it?"

 

I mean, I don't know what Josh Sawyer and team are capable of in 18 months, but I should definitely be worrying about their inability to make a game with their own resources and decisions, according to their own design/budget/schedule, if anything.

 

What we definitely shouldn't worry about? The possibility that they might actually be competent and succeed at their goal. That would just be silly.

 

Forget half, even, since we don't know the amount. We know that Obsidian's filling a glass. Let's go ahead and call the glass partially empty, rather than partially full.

 

 

I think you shouldn't worry, but still submit many ideas ! You never know what an idea might bring into a yet uncompleted game. But I definitely trust Obsidian to bring a game that will be imperfect for everyone, but that will still be an awesome game. If the game is boring, well, at least we can say we wanted to contribute. 

[alanschu]

 

 

I've quite literally never made a character with a preposterously low score like your moronic Pal/Cav. I sincerely hope such nonsense isn't possible in P:E. Should it turn out to be possible to create such an insipid, gamey character, I hope equally that it's an unplayable character that can't interact with others verbally or in written format. Hell, a Border Collie should be brighter than that...

 

I agree, but that's an IE build and a very powerful one.  Because in the Infinity Engine games, intellect had its application and for martial classes, it was irrelevant.

 

When we're talking about "low" scores, I don't think a 10-12 applies.  That's average, which is nothing exceptional, but perfectly within reason that being exceptional in something else would still be valid.

 

 

I'll grant you that Charisma (and probably Wisdom) likely doesn't do so hot in terms of, well, any sort of combat ability.  If we maintain a strict adherence to D&D rules (for lack of a better option), the best way I could make their viability work would be that those characters receive benefits not directly relating to combat.

 

I don't know how Charisma would necessarily work (for any class... To be honest I found Charisma as the primary stat for classes like Paladin's in 3rd edition silly too), though Wisdom could be one's ability to learn (gain XP).

 

 

 

 

 

but good luck finding any halfway decent DM of any pen and paper D&D campaign that would. a Paladin with 3 INT cannot logically have a moral code. He would not be able to understand the laws of any society, let alone the strict tenets that rule a Paladin Order and its patron deity.

 

I won't disagree.  But we aren't playing a PnP campaign.  We're playing a CRPG akin to the Infinity Engine games.

[PrimeJunta]

I ran a campaign that had a paladin with INT 6 and WIS 16 (and I would certainly have allowed INT 3 had he rolled that). The player did a brilliant job of doing that role. His paladin had a natural and intuitive sense of right and wrong, but would have been completely unable to, say, describe that sense of right and wrong in terms of ethical imperatives. In many ways he was wiser, more compassionate, and juster than many of his more intelligent superiors!

[Yonjuro]

 

I'll grant you that Charisma (and probably Wisdom) likely doesn't do so hot in terms of, well, any sort of combat ability.  If we maintain a strict adherence to D&D rules (for lack of a better option), the best way I could make their viability work would be that those characters receive benefits not directly relating to combat.

 

I don't know how Charisma would necessarily work (for any class... To be honest I found Charisma as the primary stat for classes like Paladin's in 3rd edition silly too), though Wisdom could be one's ability to learn (gain XP).

 

 

 I'll play devil's advocate on this one. As a long time martial artist, I have seen a lot of people who have an aura about them that can be intimidating. It works to their advantage in a fight/sparring match in that their opponents overestimate them and don't try things that would work. I would map that to CHR more than any other stat and it makes them more effective fighters. 

 

For INT, look at Marvin Hagler v. Sugar Ray Leonard. Hagler was the very high STR/CON fighter who lost to the very high INT/DEX fighter (probably no real dump stats on either guy).

 

In the IE games, it could have been implemented where a high INT fighter was a valid build and that would have been believable if players understood how it worked.  (For example, maybe a high INT fighter would be less likely than a low INT fighter to be cowed by a high CHR fighter; maybe you get a bonus to hit for high INT and a damage bonus for high STR).

 

 P:E will have a completely new set of attributes. As long as they are well designed and understandable, there will be no problem. 

[Lephys]

Your stat-talk got me thinking: Regardless of whether or not non-typical stat values had a direct effect on combat capabilities (damage, attack speed, etc.), what if stats like INT and CHA served as prerequisites for different sets of talents (feats of old)? I mean, you already have that with DEX and STR in D&D feats. If you have 18 DEX, you get access to pretty different feats than if you have 12 DEX, and the same goes for Strength. I mean, just as an example, what if Strength supports more aggressive/offensive capabilities, and INT supports more defensive/strategic capabilities?

 

*shrug*. I just hadn't thought about the potential for the feat system before, related to the whole "what if all stats do nice things for classes" notion.

[alanschu]

I'll play devil's advocate on this one. As a long time martial artist, I have seen a lot of people who have an aura about them that can be intimidating. It works to their advantage in a fight/sparring match in that their opponents overestimate them and don't try things that would work. I would map that to CHR more than any other stat and it makes them more effective fighters.

An interesting way of looking at it. There's that "swagger" factor, I suppose. Would Ali have that?

 

 

I am in agreement with stuff like Intellect however.

[anubite]

Perhaps there should be penalties to players that attempt extreme min-maxing, if your intelligence falls below average, you have a hit chance penalty. If you have below average CHR, you have a dodge penalty. Et cetera. These penalties increase as your stats fall further and further below average. You don't receive a bonus for raises non-combat stats, past their average values? That would at least make it enticing to raise these stats. And, you could add some passive skills which negate these downsides, so you can min/max if you want, it's just a bit more costly to do so. Inherently, mages get hit easier and carry less, so they have reasons to raise STR/Dex or whatever, even if they don't use those stats offensively.

Edited August 13, 2013 by anubite

[mexrage]

As someone that dislike old D&D (all the way to 3.5, this include PF) mechanics and design, i am glad the game it´s going forward on their game mechanics, and still preserving what i liked so much that made me tolerate those old D&D mechanics.  Planescape Torment, NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer and Storm of Zehir weren´t great because of the D&D mechanics...infact that´s probably the weakest point of those games...

[Lephys]

I like where your head's at, anubite. There's no need for 18 Charisma on a Mage to be as useful as 18 Intelligence, necessarily. But, that doesn't mean raising Charisma shouldn't still be useful. And so forth for other stats/classes.

[anubite]

I think it's important that everything has value and is compelling, but if all things are equal, then we may not have a compelling game (if all options are equal, in theory, there is no good or bad option, hence the game "wins itself" though, in practice, this may not really be the case). We shouldn't outright destroy min/maxing, as many people enjoy it, and video games are about gaming a system, finding an optimal solution. The point though, is to make optimal solutions difficult to find (or close to impossible to achieve).

 

If low intelligence characters have hit chance penalties until they have "average" intelligence, players are forced to consider getting intelligence on their character. Or, they might want to invest in items which have higher natural hit chance, or perhaps, take skills which greatly increase hit chance - or maybe there's a unique passive skill that removes the penalty from low intelligence. This also makes sense to a degree - there is a minimum amount of intelligence you need in order to actually throw a punch. it's not something someone without some amount of discipline and knowledge can do correctly.

 

It could also be that people with low intelligence are more likely to injure themselves using weapons. That might seem silly, but people who lack intelligence are often foolish and reckless.

 

Heck, it could even be that having low intelligence as a warrior raises your critical chance (warrior-only passive?), but it also lowers your hit chance (or gives you a chance to hit yourself instead of your opponent?) as a result, making low intelligence not necessarily a good or bad thing.

 

It's unlikely my ideas will be implemented. But I've been struggling to hobble together an RPG. It's rather hard to find the right set of mechanics - there are lots of things that can work, the trick is finding which ones work well together.

 

If PE has the right amount of story content, it will at least make intelligent/wise PCs that are warriors compelling.

Edited August 13, 2013 by anubite

[Yonjuro]

 

I'll play devil's advocate on this one. As a long time martial artist, I have seen a lot of people who have an aura about them that can be intimidating. It works to their advantage in a fight/sparring match in that their opponents overestimate them and don't try things that would work. I would map that to CHR more than any other stat and it makes them more effective fighters.

An interesting way of looking at it. There's that "swagger" factor, I suppose. Would Ali have that?

 

 

 Sure, I guess he is a good example. One could argue (I'm not *sure* I would argue this ...) that Mike Tyson had this working in his favor for a long time too (you know, in addition to his 25 STR score). Most of his fights lasted exactly as long as it took him to reach his opponent plus 250 milliseconds (and then ten more seconds for the count out). Once somebody beat him, then he was no longer 'unbeatable' and other fighters started making intelligent use of tactics against him.

[Stun]

For INT, look at Marvin Hagler v. Sugar Ray Leonard. Hagler was the very high STR/CON fighter who lost to the very high INT/DEX fighter (probably no real dump stats on either guy).

Yes. in a nutshell.

 

Although to be fair, if we were to map out D&D-like stats to Hagler and Leonard, neither one of them had low intelligence. I'd place Hagler's pretty high --above average-- (15 or 16) But lower than Leonard's, who was a pure ring genius (18 INT for him).

 

Minor note: If anyone associated with that fight had 3 intelligence, it was probably the Judges. lol

Edited August 14, 2013 by Stun

[Stun]

Planescape Torment, NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer and Storm of Zehir weren´t great because of the D&D mechanics...infact that´s probably the weakest point of those games...

Wow, I completely disagree with this.

 

First off, The bajillions of attribute checks in PS:T (wisdom checks, intelligence checks, charisma checks etc) ARE D&D mechanics. in fact, you could argue that of all the IE games, PS:T is the only one that got it right. And it's one of the two things that made that game so special (story being the other).

 

As for Storm of Zehir, take away the 3e skill checks that played a part in the overland map and in party-based conversation, and that game becomes incredibly dull and totally unremarkable.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Stun