Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wombat

  1. I think it's the general direction except that it doesn't sound that strict to my ears. In fact, judging from the info so far, I could make a rogue bit defensive but I wouldn't be able to build it as a "Defender." So, probably, I will most likely to end up with optimizing it among other party members rather than sticking to my personal image of the class and, personally, I believe even such adaptation process would be still fun if the system provides interesting options in that direction. One of the questions I asked the designers during the Kickstarter campaign was why they use class system, instead of a skill system. At least, they showed the general direction, where they decided distinct pros and cons for each class, separating skills from the combat gameplay. Indeed, some of them step on my personal images on a certain classes but, at the end of the day, I like solid systems which make me try out different tactics with valid options rather than a "mixed soup" which tried to keep everyone happy.
  2. Yeah, I have been wondering how much the defense capability of PoE rogue would be. It may be a bee but with a more lethal needle and if I build it more defensive, it might play like a rogue in IWD2/NWN2. That said, unlike high DEX build in the old games, DEF of PoE rogue, which doesn't seem to be high, may play as a limitation for that.
  3. Yeah, in my understanding, SA is rogue exclusive, too. Also, I've gotten an impression that DEF of the rogue won't be so high (hence the glass cannon reference, I guess). Glass cannon or heavy-hitter, what PE Rouge is designed for seems to be piling damages to the opponents while the style may be different-either relying on his/her own tricky abilities, just focused on the coordination with other characters (flanking) or somewhere inbetween. So, building a rogue as an evasive tank which runs around battlefields like an annoying bee, letting others do damage would be a wrong presumption based on gameplay of IWD2/NWN2, I guess. In any case, even in my experience with other games, it is much more fun in the long run when I adapt myself to a new setting rather than sticking to fixed ideas from old/familiar rule-sets.
  4. Plus, they get even greater bonuses to their sneak attack damage (the heaviness of their hitting) with greater numbers of supportive factors in play (prone, hobbled AND flanked guy takes more damage from Rogue than just-prone guy, for example). And since many of these factors are bestowable by not-just-Rogues, the Rogue who simply charges in to handle things directly is always going to be at a heavy-hittingness disadvantage in comparison to the Rogue who relies on the rest of the party setting up as many factors as possible in addition to the ones he himself is setting up, THEN taking advantage of them all (indirectly). About it-yeah, I was thinking of a similar thing…is sneak attack is not exclusive to the rogue class? Or do you mean that the added conditions can be mildly exploitable by other party members than another rogue in the party?, which seems to be more likely to be the case. Then again, whichever you meant, as I wrote, I am not obsessed with my fantasy enough to build a character which is not fitted to the actual gameplay and I'd rather be happy with hard-hitter rogue with some indirect non-combat approaches.
  5. @Silent Winter Thank you for the explanation but I know. I simply don't like the rogue to do damage himself/herself, which feels like an assassin than a rogue to me. Then again, it's just my personal fantasy and not a big deal-in the long run. Rather, designers' patient effort of keeping each option valid will keep the fun last longer. I've already talked about this in the update thread and I'm not willing to hijack this thread. -Edit- @ Lephys I replied to your post at the thread just in case.
  6. Yeah, it's just my personal preference/fantasy in which I would like, at least, a possible rogue build to be indirect and manipulative even in combat. However, I have no intention of being obsessed by the notion and I agree that quite many things are inexplicable in RPG systems in general.
  7. Just for clarification, in my personal case (as if you mind), I'd like the rogue to be useful in combat but not as a heavy-hitter. That said, I understand the designers have to decide both weaknesses and strengthes of each class and that expecting every single trait they choose for it fits our own personal image on it is plain unrealistic. We backers decided to let the team "DM" our game and, basically, I trust Sawyer and his team on that.
  8. The alternatives don't sound too far from making each class self-sufficient or shifting them into more like skill system with another axis of choosing high or low magic tones, which has been suggested quite a few times already. Personally, I prefer a skill system and wouldn't mind such direction but...
  9. To some extent, I understand attachment to familiar systems and I, too, hope the gameplay will stay within my liking. However, at the same time, I cannot but wonder if our fixed ideas/presumptions are ruining potentially better game experience... Personally, so far, I'm happy with the provided info. Even if some info doesn't match my images, there are almost always caliculated purposes for them, which is vital when I choose PnP games. I don't let my expectation go skyhigh for any crowd-funding project, either.
  10. This is not a new info and I think Sawyer is being polite along with the other thread, where he even stepped in making sure they are not making many useless abilities (What kinds of designers should intentionally do it in the first place?). Also, I was not a fan of IWD2 class dialogues, which basically just reminded me what class I chose outside of the character sheet screen and often stepped on my image of the character/class. Naturally, I'm more interested in disposition/reputation dialogues.
  11. Now one thing has been bugging me is that the inventory limitation. In IE context, the players don't feel the need of changing equipment often. However, since, in PoE, there is basically no restriction on common equipment at least, it will probably make me eager to try out different equipment and change my tactics often than just rest points. So I have to ask the designers: Do you think the inventory, which was asked by the backers who were thinking under IE context, works well with the new format of PoE?
  12. Yeah, this is more like exploration of build possbilities. Indeed, it is more of my wishful thinking to imagine a rogue character who avoids getting his/her hand dirty by relying on indirect methods-even in combat. However, going through Rogue's ability list again, the class seems to be about how to make a big damage through its sneak attack ability while avoiding direct confrontation. Also, if we want a mobile tank which spams negative effects on the enemies, there is a monk class. Still, I'm not sure about how it goes with AoE and evasion conjuncture, though, since so far, the rogue is only class which has an ability tied to evasion. Then again, how effective it would be in the non-save system of PoE remains unclear.
  13. I didn't even try to say such a thing. Just a possibility of one of builds which fit the image of a tricky rogue in old IE context since it's very unlikely for him to go for sneaky backstab-and-win formula (stealth seems to be mainly for better positioning but it's still only effective at the start of the combat). And yeah, a status effect (poisoning?) tricky build would be easier to be expressed in the context of rule-set on paper, without relying on the actual gameplay. I cannot speak for others but I'm just speculating here. Of course, there are too many things I would like to know and my knowledge about this new system is far from even an attempt to judge. Since the devs are not replying comments (probably for the better), the optimized communication would be, as I have repeated, wait for the new info.
  14. If you build a rogue with high Mechanic skill, which "can be used to open locks as wells as find hidden objects and set/disable traps", determining "the power of traps that the character sets", and DEX, which governs "pickpocketing and sleight-of-hand actions in conversations and scripted interactions," it should pretty much cover a traditional image of Thief. Also, although Sawyer is trying to make the rogue class "self-sufficient," I suspect it is still possible to make a low Might Rogue who lets other characters do damages while he/she lures the opponents into their AoE areas, escaping from getting caught. Of course, over-enhancing this aspect may end up with a kiting heavy game and we have to wait and see, at least, till the gameplay gets available in a way or another...
  15. Based on the info so far, PoE system seems to be quite flexible as long as the functions of each class. I've gotten an impression that it may not offer a wizard with high melee capability but if the player picks up a melee class of his/her liking and build it focusing on active abilities, I think it would function as a high maintenance melee character in context of the tactical combat gameplay even if it has a different name, which is somehow, similar to taking a rouge instead of a melee ranger. Since the skill system and role-playing factor seem to be separated from the class concept in the tactical combat gameplay as some people here pointed out, I don't think class names matter too much in roleplaying. That said, probably, such discussion would be more fruitful at least after all the updates are done for every single class. Even about the buffing, support classes such as priests are yet to be revealed.
  16. Yeah, that's my understanding, too. Hence the comment about the possible tactical importance of active ability interruption, which we are yet to know.
  17. For the sake of measuring build effectiveness, I'm assuming the No Prebuffing rule . In fact, That's going to BE the rule with POE (no spell pre-buffing) whether we like it or not. Not a big deal for a fighter-mage, since the best buffs have nearly instant casting times (Mirror Image, Stoneskin, invisibility) But then, is the mage also not allowed to de-buff the warrior during combat? Because that's one of the huge advantages offered to melee mages. In my melee-mage runs in the IE games, a common tactic I used was to slow or hold my opponent. And of course, fighters can do the same to mages, with the right weapons. Hmmm...I guess I translated "buff up" into active ability usage in my mind. Probably, still too early to discuss this since we don't know about how interruption works... That said, DEF of a wizard doesn't seem to be high so, it wouldn't be desirable for a wizard to be under fierce physical attacks as Grimoire Slam indicates. Less importantly, I'm still not sure they are eliminating any buff even if they are unlikely go for the direction of that buff-debuff rote-heavy BG2. Hopefully, coming updates will shed more light on the topic.
  18. I asked a similar question during their Kickstarter campaign. Means, making a skill system with class templates to make both groups happy. While later Sawyer admitted it's possible to make a game with a scope of something like JA2, for this game, he came up with a distinct class system for tactical party-based combat with skills as an additional layer. As a game which functions similar to D&D games, I think his choice is more reasonable than my possible suggestion. Of course, he won't be able to cover all the fantasies (pre-conceived notions) of the players around classes but I think he is doing a great job in keeping each class distinct and valid while listening to the players when he finds it possible.
  19. Yeah, that would be much cleaner although I'm still not sure if it was what the OP meant. I'd like the devs to give various tools for the players to fit the gameplays to their preferences, while keeping the game challenging enough to encourage them to make full use of their resources, too, especially at higher difficulties. However, I think it's already their plan, based on what I read so far. About the actual execution, though...well, I don't think I need to repeat myself.
  20. Honestly, no. If I you were discussing smoothly with other posters in this thread, it would be my part of problem, though.
  21. ? I think, currently, active abilities are divided into per rest and per encounter ones. Maybe you are talking of modal ones but they have their own pros and cons.
  22. Yeah, it would have been more logical if he started the thread like: IE games had tons of spells but how many were actually useful as meaningful choices? Which confused me first but when I came across the words such as Bioshock/Dishonored, I began to think it would make more sense if the thread was based on a different motivation. Wonder if I'm right but that's what I thought.
  23. I'm wondering if this thread would be yet another simplification casual vs old skool hardcore thread. How many spells did D&D IE games have? How many of them were accessible to any character build/any situation? Outside of per encounter abilities and no spell disruption (interruption is there), I don't see many changes in the limitation to the abilities. Furthermore, like in IE games, the players don't need to use abilities if they can deal with given situations (and force-march their parties)-except that this is same to Dishonored, if you actually played it. Additionally, if you don't like concumptive ability-focused game, you can build a traditional style party with low maintenance character-builds except magic users. Some might think this is just a presentation of fanboysm but, personally, I don't feel the game is designed for casuals judging from the given info so far. In fact, I was surprised when Sawyer told that he wouldn't like to turn off FF even in easy mode, which I'm not planning to play (and I wouldn't mind, to be honest, which means I'm still seeing things from the viewpoint of a player). He sounds to feel responsibility in offering intended gameplay to various types of players and I value such conscious DM attitude. I feel similar thoughtfulness from various implementations which try to ease the learning curve without sacrificing the gameplay. That said, of course, some players won't be convinced till they see the actual gameplay, which is a valid attitude to some extent and I won't even try to convince them but point out that the given info doesn't seem to indicate that Sawyer and his team are going to making the game for casual gamers, to my eyes.
  24. I know...and I agree that there is no good in getting lost in conjecture, either, but still feel sad.
  25. When Feargus came up with the possible next Kickstarter plan, I thought they might want to keep people who worked on South Park. However, at the same time, they have been being open the door to employment-yes, even now. So, I thought it was not so serious. https://twitter.com/AlvinNelson07/status/426900515939557376
  • Create New...