Character Rollaholic - Mea Culpa

[J.E. Sawyer]

*We can't specialise in a single weapon. You need to specialise in an entire category of weapons. Ok. That's digestible.

 

*Attributes. Attributes will govern different, even vastly different, aspects of my character. How will having a universal "damage" and "accuracy" stat (whatever the final name is) help define my character from a rpg standpoint? It won't and it bothers me.

 

*Finally, something that hasn't been mentioned yet. Combat styles. I'm talking about weapon and shield, two-handed, ranged weapons, dual wielding. I'm afraid, considering their design philosophy of extremely flexible characters that constantly need to switch weapons and whatnot, that being able to specialise in combat styles is unlikely.

 

Gaining proficiency or specializing in categories of weapons has existed (at least as an option) in several editions of A/D&D, including Combat & Tactics (2nd Ed.), 4th Ed., Pathfinder, and 3.5 UE's Weapon Groups.

 

Structuring Attributes so there aren't dump stats promotes more role-playing options because non-viable builds should be much less common.  Speaking as someone who has played a lot of gimmick builds and characters with sub-par ability arrays for a given class, while it can be very enjoyable to role-play a high-Cha fighter in 3.5/Pathfinder, those characters are typically (barring the use of a lot of special/house rules) pretty ineffective at doing the job their class is supposed to do.  Choosing to play certain character concepts becomes an implicit difficulty slider and I don't think it's in the players' interest to link those two things.

 

We have combat style Talents and they should allow you to stick with a fighting style even if an enemy's specific armor strengths/weaknesses promote switching to a different damage type.  You also typically have another option: switching a character's targets.  We try to structure fights so you have a variety of enemies to contend with.

[Valorian]

Not designing dump attributes is good. Designing all attributes to be equally (even comparably if you will) useful for every class is not required. I'd rather have 1-2 objectively less important attributes available for my warrior than attribute-like abominations that don't make any sense and are of little use in role-playing (like the 2 you've described a bit already).

 

My point is that you don't have to implement universal-omni-do-all-for-all type attributes to avoid dump stats ruining the system.

 

 

I'm glad to hear about the inclusion of combat style talents. 

[Gfted1]

Thank god I wont have to switch weapon sets for every mook for every fight.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Overall, weapon/damage type switching should be occasional, not frequent.  We currently have seven damage/resist types.  In the vast majority of cases, on any given creature or type of armor, most damage types have the same DT as the base DT.  One, two, or possibly three damage types will have a higher or lower DT.  Those differences will also be consistent, so if you see someone in mail -- whether it's run-of-the-mill or some awesome magical variant -- their relative DT is always going to be worse for Crush than the base.  If you see someone in plate, their relative DT for Shock is always going to be worse than the base.  If there are two size variants of a monster, its relative damage type strengths/weaknesses will typically be maintained between the variants.

[anubite]

Will there be mono-like encounters? Like, a room full of monsters that are immune/highly-resistant to fire? Or will those not be present at the game at all?

 

I agree that most encounters should be varied so as not to make certain playstyles gimped, but if there's a single instance or two in the game where players who rely on certain strategies/builds need to do something radically different in a single room to move past it... that could be interesting. Though, maybe it's not worth it?

 

My flimsy question is: How true are you sticking to that design philosophy? Will it be permitted to have encounters ever designed that way?

[J.E. Sawyer]

Will there be mono-like encounters? Like, a room full of monsters that are immune/highly-resistant to fire? Or will those not be present at the game at all?

 

I agree that most encounters should be varied so as not to make certain playstyles gimped, but if there's a single instance or two in the game where players who rely on certain strategies/builds need to do something radically different in a single room to move past it... that could be interesting. Though, maybe it's not worth it?

 

My flimsy question is: How true are you sticking to that design philosophy? Will it be permitted to have encounters ever designed that way?

 

We may have encounters like that.  I think it's good to mix up encounters so they're not constantly balanced around maximal uses of resources or overly formulaic.  Sometimes it's nice to just roll a bunch of scrubs in an otherwise difficult dungeon.  Sometimes it's nice to see the balance of enemy types/resistances radically shifted.  As long as it doesn't present an insurmountable roadblock, it becomes an opportunity to think/use your characters a little differently.

[Jarmo]

blah..blah..blah... Those differences will also be consistent, so if you see someone in mail -- whether it's run-of-the-mill or some awesome magical variant -- their relative DT is always going to be worse for Crush than the base...blah...blah...If there are two size variants of a monster,....typically .....

 

Consistency is bliss. Very much appreciate it where ever when ever seen.

 

 

Will there be mono-like encounters? Like, a room full of monsters that are immune/highly-resistant to fire? 

 

We may have encounters like that.  

 

 

Hopefully not the other way around... "oh, the blue skin rats, they can only be hurt with electricity".

Not with fire, not with swords, not with nuclear armageddon, only electricity, 14 amps will do nicely.

[Tsuga C]

Thank god I wont have to switch weapon sets for every mook for every fight.

I simply hope that there won't be too many "mook fights". Once per chapter (every other chapter, maybe?) I can see the party being demi-human meat grinders laying waste to a small horde of opponents, but more often than that and it would pall.

[Valorian]

Thank god I wont have to switch weapon sets for every mook for every fight.

 

There's still the damage type switch thing. It will haunt you forever.   Even weapon group specialisations won't save you because they'll cover all damage types (why Josh, whyy?  ). I want to pierce! Just pierce! Or just slash if slashing weapons are cooler.

Overall, weapon/damage type switching should be occasional, not frequent.  We currently have seven damage/resist types.  In the vast majority of cases, on any given creature or type of armor, most damage types have the same DT as the base DT.  One, two, or possibly three damage types will have a higher or lower DT.  Those differences will also be consistent, so if you see someone in mail -- whether it's run-of-the-mill or some awesome magical variant -- their relative DT is always going to be worse for Crush than the base.  If you see someone in plate, their relative DT for Shock is always going to be worse than the base.  If there are two size variants of a monster, its relative damage type strengths/weaknesses will typically be maintained between the variants.

 

Oh, so you included the higher DT variation.. Why did I mention that in one of my comments.. somewhere else.

 

I need to say one thing.

It's a precious thing (like a snowflake!) to have an informative, stable and pleasant developer to exchange ideas. If you were someone else, you'd maybe say angry things and start barking at people and theatrically leave the topic proclaiming "I'll leave it at that" and then return 10 times and after that write a huge bitter blog post about toxic people, while shaking and eating hot soup.

 

You're very good.

[Gfted1]

I simply hope that there won't be too many "mook fights". Once per chapter (every other chapter, maybe?) I can see the party being demi-human meat grinders laying waste to a small horde of opponents, but more often than that and it would pall.

My understanding is that PE will be a combat centric game, so most likely there will be a lot of battles. You prefer a more story driven approach?

[Gfted1]

 

Thank god I wont have to switch weapon sets for every mook for every fight.

 

There's still the damage type switch thing. It will haunt you forever.   Even weapon group specialisations won't save you because they'll cover all damage types (why Josh, whyy?  ). I want to pierce! Just pierce! Or just slash if slashing weapons are cooler.

 

That I think I can deal with. Someone (Sawyer?) once mentioned that the BG series implemented the same type of system and TBH, I didn't even notice it in those games. As long as I can just equip my party members in their BiS gear and not have to worry about changing weapon sets, then Im cool with the system.

[anubite]

I think people asking for low-combat backed the wrong game. BG/BG2 seldom let you skip conflict through persuasion. Of course, alternative problem solving is great, but complaining about there being too much combat... your game is called Numenera.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Hopefully not the other way around... "oh, the blue skin rats, they can only be hurt with electricity".

Not with fire, not with swords, not with nuclear armageddon, only electricity, 14 amps will do nicely.

 

No, we really don't want to do that at all.  I think it is better to occasionally say, "Of the ten ways you could attack this guy, these three are not good" than to say, "This is the one way out of ten that you can viably attack this guy."  The former encourages you to examine other possibilities, but you can arrive at a number of solutions, some of which work better for your particular character/party.  The latter can leave you in a situation where you're just SOL (or at a severe disadvantage).

[Lephys]

Thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule to address so many posts, Josh. ^_^

 

I was wondering if you could, perchance, provide a little more detail on the new-character class bonuses, and how they'll potentially affect things as the character progresses throughout the game (in the grand scheme of things), as there was some concern that a simple permanent +3 Deflection for a Fighter (for example; don't know if that's accurate to the actual game's design) would be inconsequential when it comes to Attack-vs-Defense scales. It would be very much appreciated, if you have the time.

[Tsuga C]

My understanding is that PE will be a combat centric game, so most likely there will be a lot of battles. You prefer a more story driven approach?

In a word, yes! The classic "dungeon crawl" has never made much sense to me nor held all that much appeal. Slogging through scores of chambers beneath the earth, all stocked with monsters of one sort or another (what do they eat and drink and where's the latrine?) was all fine and dandy when I was a 12 year-old child, but it's not all that satisfying now. The wave after wave of thieves in one of the NWN2 houses (sorry, can't remember the name of the quest) struck me as absurd. I recall thinking, "How many of these scoundrels are packed into this one lousy house, anyway?" at least half a dozen times before confronting (finally!) a female sub-boss of some kind. That sort of repetitive nonsense I can live without.

 

I prefer wilderness campaigns, exploring ruins, political intrigue, open warfare between polities and/or religions, or city adventures that don't involve wave after wave of the same bozos--plenty of lore and story-driven/related events, not so many endless battles against opponents who are blatantly inferior to my party. That's my understanding of the definition of a "mook battle", anyway. If you can scythe through the lot of them like they're ripe wheat, then you're fighting "mooks". *yaaaawwwwnnnnnn* I don't need or want "filler battles" just to pad the length of the quest, so I dearly hope that the "trash mobs" are kept to a minimum in P.E.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Thank you so much for taking time out of your busy schedule to address so many posts, Josh. ^_^

 

I was wondering if you could, perchance, provide a little more detail on the new-character class bonuses, and how they'll potentially affect things as the character progresses throughout the game (in the grand scheme of things), as there was some concern that a simple permanent +3 Deflection for a Fighter (for example; don't know if that's accurate to the actual game's design) would be inconsequential when it comes to Attack-vs-Defense scales. It would be very much appreciated, if you have the time.

 

In D&D, +3 is still +3 even when other bonuses from other sources enter the mix that makes up the aggregate.  Even if it comprises a smaller proportion of the total, it's still valuable.  All other things being equal, a class' starting defense bonuses will always shift their overall balance.  A 5th level barbarian may find a number of ways (items, spells, etc.) to get his or her Deflection on par with a 5th level fighter's, but given access to the same methods, the fighter would still maintain his or her class advantage.

 

In PE, for any standard attack, every 5 points of defense translates to a 5% shift to miss, graze, hit, and crit (sometimes negating the possibility entirely).  In D&D terms, a 15 point defense advantage is similar to +3/-3.  Shifting the odds always helps.

[Lephys]

Thanks for that, ^_^. So, yeah, a 3-point defense bonus, alone, isn't some kind of phenomenal end-all-be-all bonus that makes your Fighter uber Fightery compared to a non-Fighter. But then, it's not supposed to. I guess if he got a 10-point bonus, for example, PLUS all the other things that distinguish a Fighter from the other classes, things would get a little ridiculous. And, you've got those times when a few points DOES make a significant difference.

 

Still, I can see the idea of some kind of rate or sectioned bonus appealing a bit more. However gradual. Example: Every other level, Fighter gets +1 additional point of Deflection. Granted, that's just looking at it in isolation, and such a thing isn't necessary. The Fighter's already going to be different via progression.

 

I think it's mainly just that we're so used to seeing such stat/parameter differences playing out through progression, rather than being a permanent thing maintained throughout the character's life, from the get-go (i.e. hitpoints per level, attack bonus per level, number of attacks per level, bonus feats and their frequency, etc.). So, I trust that the +3, rather than being "insignificant," is actually an admittedly smaller part of the entire package of distinctive, significant variation for a given class.

 

Or, to put it another way, it's good to know for sure that that isn't supposed to be any more individually significant than it already is. Makes sense to me. I was trying to think of any specific example of how it could even be significant, by itself, and I failed to consider the possibility of misses and crits shifting in-and-out of existence. And, again, that's just versus any other class that's built identically to a Fighter. So, thanks for the perspective, 8D!

Edited September 5, 2013 by Lephys

[J.E. Sawyer]

I think it's mainly just that we're so used to seeing such stat/parameter differences playing out through progression, rather than being a permanent thing maintained throughout the character's life, 

 

If you're comparing it to D&D, this is a similar progression except for two differences: 1) we maintain differences between classes (given equal level) as an integer rather than as a proportion and 2) because we use a 100 point base scale instead of a 20 point base scale, we have finer control over per-level advancement.

 

E.g. in Pathfinder, a fighter starts with +2 Fort, +0 Ref, +0 Will.  They progress like this (Fort/Ref/Will)

 

5th +4 +1 +1

10th +7 +3 +3

15th +9 +5 +5

20th +12 +6 +6

 

A rogue starts with +0 Fort, +2 Ref, +0 Will.  They progress like this (Fort/Ref/Will)

 

5th +1 +4 +1

10th +3 +7 +3

15th +5 +9 +5

20th +6 +12 +6

 

It's a regular progression: they start with an advantage in one (for some classes in D&D, two), and advance at regular intervals.  Of course, at high levels this falls apart because the proportional gulf between good and bad saves becomes so wide that characters have to overcompensate or inure themselves to specific effects to avoid being sucker punched.  At 1st level, the difference between the good and bad saves is (effectively) 10%.  At 10th level, it's 20%.  At 20th level, it's 30%.

 

To make matters worse, typically the obvious "good" stats for a given class reinforce the better saves and neglect the worse saves.  Fighters often have a high Con, which means they are likely to have an even higher total Fort than normal.  They might have a decent Dex which can bolster their Reflex, but it's rare that they have a high Wis (and consequently, Will save).  Because save DCs are often balanced around the "hard" targets, it means that the weakest saves of a class combined with the weakest (or least important) ability scores for that class make them really, really vulnerable.  This is why Pathfinder has a special Bravery feature for fighters at higher levels -- otherwise they'd run or freeze in terror more than half the time a comparable caster chucked a Will-based fear effect their way.

 

In PE, fighters start with the following defenses: 25 Deflect, 15 Fortitude, 10 Reflexes, 10 Psyche.  Rogues start with the following defenses: 15 Deflect, 10 Fortitude, 30 Reflexes, 5 Psyche.  Every level, every character gains +3 to all defenses.  At 6th level, the fighter would have 40 Deflect, 30 Fortitude, 25 Reflexes, 25 Psyche.  The rogue would have 30 Deflect, 25 Fortitude, 45 Reflexes, 20 Psyche.  The fighter's worst defenses are still Reflexes and Psyche, but they're only "just as" bad (by the same margin) as they were at 1st level.  The same applies to the rogue's Psyche and Fortitude.  And while the rogue did "catch up" to where the fighter's Deflection was, the fighter maintains the same 10 point advantage over the rogue that he or she did at 1st level.

 

Of course, Attributes, gear, Talents, Abilities, etc. also can all feed into your defenses, but those are much easier to switch around than your class and level.  I.e., if you find yourself particularly vulnerable to a particular type of attack (meaning, what defense it targets), the cause is likely easier to remedy in PE than it would be in D&D (because class is such a large component of that value as levels rise).

[Lephys]

Splendtastic breakdown!

 

Yeah, the difference in most games is that we tend to see that rate bearing the difference, such as a Fighter gaining +4 Deflection and +2 Fortitude per level while someone else gets +2 and +4, respectively. But, everyone starts with much closer to the same numbers.

 

I think it works a lot better when it's maintained, as you've pointed out.

 

What else helps, though, is knowing that the starting values are much more significantly different. I think the concern over a lack of significance in the distinctive class-based values maybe came from the idea that the starting values would be remarkably close to one another.

 

If a Fighter started with 23 Deflection, for example, and everyone else started with 20 (I know some would have lower... but, just for example's sake), and all classes gained the same +3 to all defenses every level, then the 3-point difference would be pretty miniscule. I think that was the scenario in question, which got me to thinking that we had only really heard concepts for differences in starting class defense values (and other similar values), and not any specifics on the exact extent of those differences.

 

Maybe there were previous examples or mentions, and those of us in this thread simply missed them. Either way, I am very grateful for the breakdown. Just the example difference of 10 points between the Fighter's and Rogue's Deflection defense dissolves any concern as to classes' base defense values varying insignificantly from one another.

 

Excellent design, ^_^!

[Valorian]

 

In PE, fighters start with the following defenses: 25 Deflect, 15 Fortitude, 10 Reflexes, 10 Psyche.  Rogues start with the following defenses: 15 Deflect, 10 Fortitude, 30 Reflexes, 5 Psyche.  Every level, every character gains +3 to all defenses.  At 6th level, the fighter would have 40 Deflect, 30 Fortitude, 25 Reflexes, 25 Psyche.  The rogue would have 30 Deflect, 25 Fortitude, 45 Reflexes, 20 Psyche.  The fighter's worst defenses are still Reflexes and Psyche, but they're only "just as" bad (by the same margin) as they were at 1st level.  The same applies to the rogue's Psyche and Fortitude.  And while the rogue did "catch up" to where the fighter's Deflection was, the fighter maintains the same 10 point advantage over the rogue that he or she did at 1st level.

 

 

Sounds good. It's a satisfying starting difference. The basis for my previous comments about defenses was a photo with all the starting defenses that you posted several months ago; the difference was much smaller. There's another change that I'm also liking.

 

 

Speaking of damage types, there's currently only 4 non-physical types of damage: fire, frost, shock and.. either acid or something more abstract like magic/spirit/negative energy/etc. damage. I love 'em all!

 

Why not both acid and one badass supernatural type of damage?   Undeads want!

[Hormalakh]

 

I think it's mainly just that we're so used to seeing such stat/parameter differences playing out through progression, rather than being a permanent thing maintained throughout the character's life, 

 

If you're comparing it to D&D, this is a similar progression except for two differences: 1) we maintain differences between classes (given equal level) as an integer rather than as a proportion and 2) because we use a 100 point base scale instead of a 20 point base scale, we have finer control over per-level advancement.

 

E.g. in Pathfinder, a fighter starts with +2 Fort, +0 Ref, +0 Will.  They progress like this (Fort/Ref/Will)

 

5th +4 +1 +1

10th +7 +3 +3

15th +9 +5 +5

20th +12 +6 +6

 

A rogue starts with +0 Fort, +2 Ref, +0 Will.  They progress like this (Fort/Ref/Will)

 

5th +1 +4 +1

10th +3 +7 +3

15th +5 +9 +5

20th +6 +12 +6

 

It's a regular progression: they start with an advantage in one (for some classes in D&D, two), and advance at regular intervals.  Of course, at high levels this falls apart because the proportional gulf between good and bad saves becomes so wide that characters have to overcompensate or inure themselves to specific effects to avoid being sucker punched.  At 1st level, the difference between the good and bad saves is (effectively) 10%.  At 10th level, it's 20%.  At 20th level, it's 30%.

 

To make matters worse, typically the obvious "good" stats for a given class reinforce the better saves and neglect the worse saves.  Fighters often have a high Con, which means they are likely to have an even higher total Fort than normal.  They might have a decent Dex which can bolster their Reflex, but it's rare that they have a high Wis (and consequently, Will save).  Because save DCs are often balanced around the "hard" targets, it means that the weakest saves of a class combined with the weakest (or least important) ability scores for that class make them really, really vulnerable.  This is why Pathfinder has a special Bravery feature for fighters at higher levels -- otherwise they'd run or freeze in terror more than half the time a comparable caster chucked a Will-based fear effect their way.

 

In PE, fighters start with the following defenses: 25 Deflect, 15 Fortitude, 10 Reflexes, 10 Psyche.  Rogues start with the following defenses: 15 Deflect, 10 Fortitude, 30 Reflexes, 5 Psyche.  Every level, every character gains +3 to all defenses.  At 6th level, the fighter would have 40 Deflect, 30 Fortitude, 25 Reflexes, 25 Psyche.  The rogue would have 30 Deflect, 25 Fortitude, 45 Reflexes, 20 Psyche.  The fighter's worst defenses are still Reflexes and Psyche, but they're only "just as" bad (by the same margin) as they were at 1st level.  The same applies to the rogue's Psyche and Fortitude.  And while the rogue did "catch up" to where the fighter's Deflection was, the fighter maintains the same 10 point advantage over the rogue that he or she did at 1st level.

 

Of course, Attributes, gear, Talents, Abilities, etc. also can all feed into your defenses, but those are much easier to switch around than your class and level.  I.e., if you find yourself particularly vulnerable to a particular type of attack (meaning, what defense it targets), the cause is likely easier to remedy in PE than it would be in D&D (because class is such a large component of that value as levels rise).

 

 

It would be very nice to be able to shift these defense gains around with the use of "talents" (or whatever else option you'd like). You said you'd have all classes get +3 to all defenses each level. Perhaps it might be interesting (or some players would like to) shift these so each level they get +3 to deflection and reflexes, but +2 to psyche and +4 to fortitude each level, based on a certain way that they intend to play their character.

 

have you thought about doing this? i'd like to play where i can subsubsubspecialize my party as much as possible. at the very least, it'd introduce another strateegic option to players.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Lephys]

I think the intent is for there to be plenty of ways in which to shift the variations around, just not through base points-gained-per-level. It's sort of the spine, and all the other things you can do (equipment, abilities, talents, others?) will present the array of various builds you can have (in regard to the 4 defenses), even for the exact same character.

[Sezneg]

 

 

I think it's mainly just that we're so used to seeing such stat/parameter differences playing out through progression, rather than being a permanent thing maintained throughout the character's life, 

 

If you're comparing it to D&D, this is a similar progression except for two differences: 1) we maintain differences between classes (given equal level) as an integer rather than as a proportion and 2) because we use a 100 point base scale instead of a 20 point base scale, we have finer control over per-level advancement.

 

E.g. in Pathfinder, a fighter starts with +2 Fort, +0 Ref, +0 Will.  They progress like this (Fort/Ref/Will)

 

5th +4 +1 +1

10th +7 +3 +3

15th +9 +5 +5

20th +12 +6 +6

 

A rogue starts with +0 Fort, +2 Ref, +0 Will.  They progress like this (Fort/Ref/Will)

 

5th +1 +4 +1

10th +3 +7 +3

15th +5 +9 +5

20th +6 +12 +6

 

It's a regular progression: they start with an advantage in one (for some classes in D&D, two), and advance at regular intervals.  Of course, at high levels this falls apart because the proportional gulf between good and bad saves becomes so wide that characters have to overcompensate or inure themselves to specific effects to avoid being sucker punched.  At 1st level, the difference between the good and bad saves is (effectively) 10%.  At 10th level, it's 20%.  At 20th level, it's 30%.

 

To make matters worse, typically the obvious "good" stats for a given class reinforce the better saves and neglect the worse saves.  Fighters often have a high Con, which means they are likely to have an even higher total Fort than normal.  They might have a decent Dex which can bolster their Reflex, but it's rare that they have a high Wis (and consequently, Will save).  Because save DCs are often balanced around the "hard" targets, it means that the weakest saves of a class combined with the weakest (or least important) ability scores for that class make them really, really vulnerable.  This is why Pathfinder has a special Bravery feature for fighters at higher levels -- otherwise they'd run or freeze in terror more than half the time a comparable caster chucked a Will-based fear effect their way.

 

In PE, fighters start with the following defenses: 25 Deflect, 15 Fortitude, 10 Reflexes, 10 Psyche.  Rogues start with the following defenses: 15 Deflect, 10 Fortitude, 30 Reflexes, 5 Psyche.  Every level, every character gains +3 to all defenses.  At 6th level, the fighter would have 40 Deflect, 30 Fortitude, 25 Reflexes, 25 Psyche.  The rogue would have 30 Deflect, 25 Fortitude, 45 Reflexes, 20 Psyche.  The fighter's worst defenses are still Reflexes and Psyche, but they're only "just as" bad (by the same margin) as they were at 1st level.  The same applies to the rogue's Psyche and Fortitude.  And while the rogue did "catch up" to where the fighter's Deflection was, the fighter maintains the same 10 point advantage over the rogue that he or she did at 1st level.

 

Of course, Attributes, gear, Talents, Abilities, etc. also can all feed into your defenses, but those are much easier to switch around than your class and level.  I.e., if you find yourself particularly vulnerable to a particular type of attack (meaning, what defense it targets), the cause is likely easier to remedy in PE than it would be in D&D (because class is such a large component of that value as levels rise).

 

 

It would be very nice to be able to shift these defense gains around with the use of "talents" (or whatever else option you'd like). You said you'd have all classes get +3 to all defenses each level. Perhaps it might be interesting (or some players would like to) shift these so each level they get +3 to deflection and reflexes, but +2 to psyche and +4 to fortitude each level, based on a certain way that they intend to play their character.

 

have you thought about doing this? i'd like to play where i can subsubsubspecialize my party as much as possible. at the very least, it'd introduce another strateegic option to players.

 

 

This isn't necessary, as the +3 per level is only there to denote the level gap itself.  This is the mathematical component that makes it harder for a level 1 character of any build to hit a level 10 character of any build.

 

You will have ways to tailor your character to be better in ways you want, however unlike DnD 3/3.5 rule sets this will likely be the result of specific and meaningful choices you make during character advancement; not something that grows in effectiveness while leveling (as the fighter's fort save advantage over a wizard grows in 3.0/3.5 DnD).  Once we adjust to the ruleset (which takes time as with all RPG ruleset swaps), I believe this will be a much more intuitive system, and a lot of the underlying math will be easier to intuit even if a player doesn't resort to spreadsheets.

 

3.0/3.5 DnD has some pretty cool optimization challenges, and character building for those who enjoy gaming out the math to find the optimization points has become a game into itself.  I myself enjoy it at times.  But it's a system that has some real weaknesses in the role-playing area that were often pasted over with Prc after Prc... which sort of worked, but also fueled further min/maxing silliness.  The problem with the D20 system, ultimately, is that weaknesses compound over time.  A good tabletop DM can solve a lot of issues; but in a cRGP the math behind DC levels tends to result in "you only hit on a crit" and "you only save on a 1" for non-optimized characters.  I'll be glad to see this go away in PE, even if it does cost some of the "me vs the ruleset" optimization fun of 3.5 DnD.

[Gromnir]

am not a fan of d&d. am not a fan of classes. nevertheless, there were a kinda rationality at work with the rock-paper-scissors approach d&d uses. it were relative ez to identify enemy type or class, and then choose appropriate attack type to deal with that foe... with the exception o' dm purposefully using shapechangers to mess with players expectations.  regardless, one could argue that the d&d approach were a strength o' the system. if you marginalize or minimize differences between the classes, you similarly minimize the rock-paper-scissors approach that were so popular in d&d.  similarly, if you diminish the advantages o' playing build X over build Y, you run the risk of diminishing the appeal o' playing build X without necessarily increasing appeal of Y. 

 

again, at this point we just don't know enough. the effort going into diminishing the advantages o' one class over other makes us wonder why bother with classes at all, but perhaps that is a question for a different thread. or maybe not. classes seems like they is more an integral aspect o' rock-paper-scissors, and PE seems to be going away form that approach.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lephys]

I'm a little confused by the use of "rock-paper-scissors" to describe this whole attack-type-vs-defense-type system. In rock-paper-scissors, you know what works against what, but you don't know what your actually squaring off against. But, in a game, you typically see a golem and say "Oh, it's rock, I should use paper." If rock paper scissors is simply referring to the aspect of one attack type being better against one defense type, and one defense type being better against one attack type, etc., then I don't really know what a feasible alternative would be. Randomized effects?

 

Imagine that game of rock-paper-scissors:

 

"Oh, THIS round, my rock beats your paper. But, next round... WHO KNOWS!"

 

 

Now, if the reference is used to suggest that the attack-vs-defense system should be more complex than just a little "I beat YOU, YOU beat HIM, and HE beats ME" triangle, then I totally agree.

 

I'm sincerely wondering what people mean when they say this, because "rock-paper-scissors" gets referenced in almost every single discussion of attack-type-vs-defense-type that I've seen, usually by multiple people.