Jump to content

Wombat

Members
  • Content Count

    1,063
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About Wombat

  • Rank
    Obsidian Order's Mysterious Stranger

Badges

  • Pillars of Eternity Backer Badge
  • Pillars of Eternity Kickstarter Badge
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Backer Badge
  • Deadfire Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
  1. @Infinitron Yeah, that's why I put "possible" in my post since I doubted you were talking of such extreme. I didn't know the jargon Rogue Shuffle (probably, from Ali Shuffle, which is considered as a useless but showy movement) or I am not familiar with NWN or Dragon Ages, though. Again, I wouldn't argue against making the engagement process clear although, personally, I'd use pause or trigger the slow-mo mode when I see hostiles nearing a non-melee character. For me, the main issue is the stubborn bug, where hostiles "teleport" while it became rarer but still exists. @gkathellar I gu
  2. Actually, after the update (v301 bb), if you hover the cursor on the circles of engaged characters, there appear arrows which show who is attacking and who is being attacked. However, what the OP wants seems to have a window of time for the players to decide about the engagement before automatically locked into it. While I don't argue against that any tactically important factor including the engagement process should be clear, I'm not sure of the possible total control over engagement such as the players being able to avoid engagement totally without any cost since it's a part of the syste
  3. @MC Hmmm…maybe, not as much as old days but, personally, I don't feel like that. Young Sawyer posted pretty quickly but some of the posts were more impulsive at times. Nowadays, when he posts something, they are almost always well-thought. Post counts do not necessarily mean efficient communication, IMO. Just my subjective opinion, of course. Yeah, I made my share of mistake by suggesting limited inventory, which, however, turned out not fitting to PoE where the best equipment depend on the situations. I've gotten an impression that they probably want more all-round feedback tha
  4. Actually, Sawyer was here earlier but likely to have left the office while ago and is probably sleeping atm. Also, I have seen some cases that there are demerits when the devs talk about things prematurely. There is huge info on the paper (and quite surprisingly, all the possible counterarguments I could come up with has been already covered.) and I don't blame them if they take time, carefully examining what they could do.
  5. Yeah, it's one of the reasons why I'd like to see more active ability options for these traditionally passive classes. Of course, those who'd like to stick to the low-maintenance build should have such options by choosing more passive abilities. [Relatively off topic] Speaking of pacing during combat, is there going to be more detailed adjustment such as a slider to customize the pace of combat, further? I mean, currently, we have only slo-mo and double speed besides the normal speed, of course.
  6. To be absolutely honest, I find myself glad when I need not hesitate to throw AoE of BB Priest's spells, which discern enemies and allies, while I find much more problem in throwing the spells of BB Wizard. In terms of pure balancing, it doesn't feel right. I understand friendly fire made more sense in DnD/IE games, where AoE spells are extremely strong and can be used just in limited circumstances but, at the end of the day, I can adapt myself to new systems as long as they are well-thought and balanced. I'll be more likely to end up giving up "broken" systems, sooner or later.
  7. Yeah, you seem to agree on the needs of changing Resolve but it doesn't actually makes sense at all to involve attribute scores where no obvious problems found in the process. "If not broken, don't fix it." attitude feels quite engineer-like but it also practical. A very competent argument on concentration, too. I thought of something similar but you put it much better than I could. Generally speaking, I found your arguments quite fair. I also hope your efforts will lead to constructive conclusions in the right direction.
  8. @Hiro Protagonist II "It was you who reduced the count of the other rogues:" It's misunderstanding. I only made the other Rogues unstealthed. "So the second rogue wouldn't be able to go invisible as well? Either all rogues in a party can go invisible at the start of combat or only one can and the others can't at the start of combat. Or does this just boil down to a special super duper invisibility scouting sneak attack for one rogue to initiate combat." Any Rogue can attack during the Stealth Mode (and score Sneak Attack) but it's only the Rogue who hits the enemy first (and started th
  9. @Hiro Protagonist II "It is complicated and doesn't make sense." Then, so be it in your eyes. I obviously disagree, though. So, feel free to disagree with me. Also, of course, it shouldn't make sense in simulationist point of view-at very least, that much I understand. "The player who has a party of Fighter, 2 Rogues, Mage, Priest and Cipher has one rogue that can go invisible at the start of combat but the other rogue can't because of what seems to be trying to stop exploits. And you also proposed that Rogues could go invisible during combat with an encounter/daily power. So now that
  10. With a party of 6 rogues. The rogue who initiates combat can go into stealth at the start of combat, but the other 5 can't go into stealth mode as well. Sounds complicated. And a rogue can go invisible but when they move they become visible? Uh, no thanks. Complicated? Not really. Actually, it shouldn't take a second to notice that there is no difference in the case of having a single Rogue in the party with just a simple rule-only the first hit matters to activate the invisibility ability. The strictest limit would be that any action cancels the invisibility while this can be softene
  11. Well, yes, then, it's my misunderstanding but it's not intentional at all. I haven't imagined the possibility of building a party exclusively composed of Rogues, so, I failed to understand your words "a rogue only party" till I read your following posts. I'd say, it's just another case of the simplicity of English language vs me. Yep, it's your misunderstanding since I've made it very clear to you. And as I said, if you have a party of 6 rogues which you can have in the game and they all go into stealth at the same time, even in combat, they all turn into ninjas. So yes, it's a crit
  12. We all have our own preferences but, judging from the latest info about Health/Stamina implementation, the devs seem to differentiate front-liners from ranged characters despite of what they wrote in the past. Like it or not, the change will be most likely to make it more difficult to swap these roles just relying on how you build them.
  13. And I somehow thought that he was an illustrator (I mean, a good one) while, reading what he wrote tells me he is not just that. Thanks for the heads-up, Sawyer, anyway. @Hiro Protagonist II ? Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. [Edit]"It's pretty obvious. Read my posts again." It's funny since these are the words I was going to tell you here. I read but I still don't understand. - I've gotten an impression that there is a misunderstanding but I cannot point my finger at it. My point has been being, since the invisibility is Rogue's special ability which suppleme
  14. No, the suggested implementation seems like Rogue Soul-based ability, at least, that is, if I'm not mistaken. Meaning, it's not natural in our eyes since it's magical. I don't think I need to remind you that we are talking of an imaginary magic-based setting. At least, it contributes to the gameplay. Also, Fighters with high stealth skill will be benefitted as well as Rogue with it. If I have to repeat, when combat starts what counts is abilities-Rogues have got the special ability while Fighters don't. The skill of Rogue can be supplemented by the ability but Fighters are not since the
  15. Yeah, I'm torn between the fixated but solid role and possible flexibility. So, let's say, we'd better forget about 1) defensive/offensive build options. After all, what the devs could appears to end up with giving as many as valid options through Talents and Abilities as Sawyer wrote-hopefully, there will be some rooms left for interesting active abilities/talents which make these "passive"* classes into more high maintenance ones if the devs use the resources well. * At least, the word sounds less subjective than something like "boring" to my ears.
×
×
  • Create New...