Jump to content

Voss

Members
  • Posts

    760
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Voss

  1. I'm not saying I entirely disagree, but by that logic, most classes should just be "fighting styles" and "anyone can learn how to x, y, z". Yes, largely because the theme of a lot of classes are very weak, largely because WotC churned out a lot of filler garbage over the years, and some things (like barbarian and druid) are specific cultural trappings masquerading as a broader concept. Ho-ho-ho-hold your horses, mate. DnD archetypes have solid literary foundations, and the rogue is based on fantasy classics like Fritz Leiber's Ffahrd and Grey Mouser and Jack Vance's Cugel the Clever (the setting of Cugel's saga, Dying Earth also gave DnD the memorization system). Cugel's roguish stories are highly entertaining, I have fond memories of reading the Hungarian translations. Think of the real-world difference between regular army soldiers and the Somalian pirates. Both fight to win, with an assault rifle in hand, but they work very differently. Based on the Let's Play videos, I say Eternity's rogues have enough to set them apart from all other classes. The various Hard/PotD discussions of the classes are proof of that. That is partly where the class inspirations came from, but distilling a half-dozen character concepts down to 'this gets these abilities and no others' is not a good way to implement a literary character concept. Played right and with a decent (and broad) general mechanical system, the Grey Mouser doesn't need to have 'rogue' written on a character sheet (and in fact does lots of things that a D&D rogue just can't do). A concept or archetype doesn't have to be bound so tightly to mechanics that only X can do Y, and X can't do any Z. Soliders vs. pirates. I'm not sure why this would support your argument. Translating between games and real world never goes well, and there really isn't anything stopping pirates from adopting military tactics apart from a lack of training or interest. Nor is there anything stopping ex-soldiers from becoming pirates. Nor is the line between Somali 'soldier' and Somali 'pirate' particularly distinct in a lot of cases- the training of soldiers in that part of Africa is something soldiers in other parts of the world openly sneer at. Proof? How so? Yes, they are set apart- but it is an entirely artificial separation. Move class talents to general talents and you can make the same character without losing anything but limitations.
  2. Female. Was rather insecure about it in the long, long ago that was the teenage years, but that has long since vanished. At some point it shifted over to exclusively female characters unless the female character models are terrible. (or worse, non-existent) That said, I find most of racial models in this game to hideously ugly, so it is going to have to be female human or female elf. Just be glad that you're blonde so the manly grey hairs won't show yet, Speaking as a blonde who has been going grey since about 30, you'd be surprised. Though admittedly my particular (and peculiar) hair ranges from 'dirty' to 'reddish' blonde, so it stands out a bit more.
  3. They rather have to be since they've committed to a late march release date. Seems cutting it overly fine to me.
  4. Not so much a semantic argument as a design argument way past the point where it matters. But considering the fighter is apparently built on knockdowns and other methods of putting people prone, monks totally cheat and at least one paladin order is all about brutal efficiency, the theoretical rogue doesn't seem to stand out at all. Though as far as uniqueness goes, I think that is the fundamental problem: they aren't. They were original written up as a special-snowflake class with noncombat abilities (which by bad design logic means that have to be less good in combat), and then were solidly entrenched as a sacred cow in later editions of D&D, and too many people have just copy/pasted that formula. But really they offer nothing, because they _aren't_ unique. A rogue is just someone with a eclectic mix of useful but unrelated dungeoneering skills (and a lot of dross) that Gygax or Arneson decided was a package deal, and they don't have anything at all to offer beyond that legacy. Anyone can shiv you and steal your wallet. I'm all for no required party composition, I'm just puzzled by the logic in dragging along this particular legacy of bad design which serves no purpose if they're sincerely following that idea. Which given the lack of an Imouen to tackle early game traps nonsense, it seems like Obsidian double-downed on it, but kept the class anyway. Which is a shame, since it hacks out opportunities for a Bleak Walker, mercenary fighter or whatever to pick up backstab (and related talents) and murder some fools because they enjoy fighting dirty. And since the rogue abilities are just class-specific talents anyway, it seems like it would have been easy enough to shift them over to the general talent lists, rather than maintaining an illusion of choice at the class selection point, but denying more meaningful customization at the talent options.
  5. In PoE, Rogues essentially are a fighting style. Great. The point is, a 'fighting style' isn't a class. Killing people quickly isn't subject to a particular theme or concept, it is merely efficient. The same results can be achieved by a gang of big guys with axes, or just obliterating people with spellfire. You could do the same thing with a linked set of talents, and basically have a single nonspellcaster class that branches out into the meaningful abilities of the fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue or monk depending on what they pick.
  6. Rogue honestly shouldn't be a class at all, just a fighting style. Anyone can learn how to deal with mechanisms, poisons and how to hide. This is particularly true for PoE, since the rogue looks more and more like a fairly useless contributor. The D&D legacy is particularly poor to the rogue, as it is too often just a fairly shoddy character you have to take along to get through the doors and traps. A dungeoneering tax, as it were.
  7. I'd be far more comfortable with that sort of argument if the game didn't flatly contradict you. Ciphers and Chanters pick up new powers in an instant- practice, mastery and training aren't involved at all. A chanter can go from slowing people down to summoning dragons in a month or two, without any sort of indication that he was secretly practicing summoning dragons 'all along.' Game mechanics like this tend not to interact well with a reasonable sense of a learning curve, or even bad movie montages. Sometimes you just have to accept a game element as is, and not worry about it. If chanters/ciphers can't learn more abilities through talents or encounters, its a deliberate design choice, not really a reflection of the setting.
  8. This seems like an important concern. Looking at some of the BB videos out there a disturbing amount of the talents (and even class abilities) look like rubbish, there to fill out a list but never to be taken.
  9. Not at all. KotoR 2 isn't any more a 'modern game' than BG2. Verisimilitude depends on setting more than anything else. Upgrading weapons does matter, and at times (particularly at the start and even into the mid-game), selling better (but not top-tier) weapons in shops is a desirable thing. So your clarity is undermined by arguing about 6 different things at once, and assuming they are the same issue. For example: Balduran's Shield was a simple solution to BG2 actively spamming gimmick loner monsters as mooks in certain dungeons. particularly one that comes so early that the party should not have the tools to deal with it, and was tied into a class stronghold line. It wasn't 'powerful', it was an easy solution to shoddy encounter design (and the terrible game design where any death (or stone) effect on your main character was a trip to the GAME OVER screen, despite the plethora of rez magic).
  10. It is fine. Or, rather it would be fine, if it was really set up like that. But large parts of both KotoRs were unfortunately all about getting better lightsabers, by hook, crook or just throwing money at people, which is absurdity. See, the thing is, loot and merchants have to be appropriate for the specific setting, and certainly not reality. And games that promote a gear treadmill and Monty Haul acquisition are really off in the Star Wars universe. Shops are for extreme weather gear, spaceship parts and mundane crap, not Even More Better lightsabers or blasters. So credits and shops really should be irrelevant and useless. For a D&D style fantasy adventure with dungeons? No, not at all. You've got your shoddy starter armor, and the armor you dream of gathering gold to obtain, and then the legendary stuff you can only get from stabbing some (hopefully monstrous) fool in the face. Plus assorted supplies, bits and bobs for better dungeoneering. It is a genre that prides itself on having both amazing loot and a giant pile of cash you can swim in, even if there isn't any real 'point' in it. Not that most people, (as opposed to dedicated warrior monks) really object to the accumulation of cash in and of itself. Alchemical substances, scrolls, crazy one shot items, useful utility items, there is a wide range of stuff that a good fantasy game can indulge in to have useful shops without selling Real Ultimate Power.
  11. Something on your mind?

×
×
  • Create New...