Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)
Obsidian’s 10th Extra Life Anniversary

J.E. Sawyer

Developers
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2952

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    131

 Content Type 

Everything posted by J.E. Sawyer

  1. J.E. Sawyer
    I will look into melee opportunities for rangers. Thanks.
  2. J.E. Sawyer
    I refer to older A/D&D rulebooks almost daily. I think that concept just might be. Not counting the mention in the post you quoted, here are two other posts that point to a 'bad in combat' mentality. Perhaps instead of talking about another couple of classes next update, there could be a new update about noncombat skills and their relation to character builds? I am very aware of the mentality, but we've never considered skill classes for PoE and have been consistent about stating so. We've previously talked about skills in an early update: https://eternity.obsidian.net/news/update-7-non-combat-skills-with-tim-cain But we could probably give another update on them in the near future. That said, like the IE games (save IWD2), PoE's skill list is relatively small. A lot of skill-oriented things (like dialogue checks and pickpocketing) are handled with attribute checks rather than dedicated skills.
  3. J.E. Sawyer
    You can sneak attack with a bow (or crossbow, gun, wand, etc.) in PoE. And yes, in 2nd Ed. AD&D you could tank as a ranger, though you were typically mathematically worse at it than a comparable fighter (not as bad in the IE games due to dual-wield/armor tradeoffs). But there's nothing in the core/RAW ranger's class description or abilities that suggests they are especially good at avoiding being hit or taking damage -- other than their d10 hit die. These class overviews do not exhaustively list every ability that classes receive, nor do they list any Talents (because Talents are being designed last). And more importantly, the abilities aren't final, so input about specific things you want to see is valuable. Gfted1 and a few others really wanted a Smite-type ability for paladins, so they got it. Do people really like the idea of a melee-oriented ranger? Apparently a good number do, so it's worthwhile for us to consider how their abilities could apply to melee as well as ranged combat. Having an animal companion (or not) is something that is unlikely to make everyone happy. If you mostly know rangers from the IE games, then there's no expectation of animal companions. If you mostly know rangers from 3E, then there's probably a very big expectation of animal companions. As an effective permanent additional party member, it's not really the sort of thing we can go halfway on and I don't think it's a good idea to make it optional because it shifts a ton of abilities away to Talent land.
  4. J.E. Sawyer
    I think your view of rangers as a class in A/D&D is skewed. In 1st edition core, rangers excelled at one thing in combat: killing giants. With UA, they could get weapon specialization and double specialization. Really, that and access to low-level druid spells (and wands, at higher levels) were the main things they had going for them (and outside of combat, tracking). In 2nd Ed. core, this changed. 2nd Ed. rangers no longer gained their +1 damage/level against giant-class creatures (replaced with a flat +4 attack bonus against a hated enemy). The ranger also gained two-weapon fighting but at the cost of wearing any seriously heavy armor. In 2nd Ed., being restricted to lighter armor was Not Good. Many of the benefits of advanced weapon specialization, (mastery, etc.) were restricted to single-class fighters. Unless the rangers were in their element fighting their hated enemies (and boy, you really hoped your DM made sure there were some in the campaign), they generally did not shine in combat. In 3E core, this changed again. You could pick favored enemies, dual-wield (or not) or use a bow (or not), and have an animal companion (as a standard class feature) but the characters generally were sub-par in fights that didn't include their favored enemies. Did you really play 3E tank rangers using core rules? They have d8 hit dice and combat paths that encourage you not to use a shield. That puts them in a better position for melee than a bard, but behind fighters and barbarians, certainly. In my (and Bobby's) experience, players who try to tank (or even off-tank) a core ranger get their faces pounded in. Your stealth ranger is still right here (it's one of their two automatic skill bonuses). Your ranger without a pet technically doesn't exist in core 3E above 3rd level because ranger pets are a standard 3E class feature. I guess you could not take a pet in core 3E, but you don't get anything in exchange for it. The classes I "want you to play" are ones that are good in combat and are distinctive from other classes. Core RAW rangers and rogues in 3E are distinctive, but they aren't great in combat. We've said from the beginning (or near the beginning) that we're not making "skill classes". The main difference between a PoE swashbuckling rogue and a core/RAW 3E swashbuckling rogue is that the PoE will be much more effective in combat (if about as fragile -- not sure where you got the idea that they tank). Sneak attack is at the core of the idea of rogues as vicious combatants, even in 3E. In Pathfinder, this goes further, with additional combat-oriented Talents opening up as they gain levels. I don't think expanding this concept makes rogues "not roguey", unless being bad in combat is essential to one's concept of what a rogue is.
  5. J.E. Sawyer
    Paladins and monks have already been covered in their own updates. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63968-update-56-paladins-and-wild-orlans/ http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63765-update-52-monk/ Paladins are classified with the leaders/support characters and monks with the front line.
  6. J.E. Sawyer
    Yeah, this is the intent.
  7. J.E. Sawyer
    We're not making a historical simulator, but bows are reasonably powerful and crossbows are quite powerful (though much slower). Over a given span of time, we are going to tip bows lower than equivalent rate of attack melee weapons because bows require little to no movement on the part of the wielder. For all the time that melee combatants spend moving, they are effectively doing 0 damage per second. I'd like to avoid "no brainer" choices in the system. For bows, we have two types: hunting bows and war bows. For crossbows, we have two types: crossbows and arbalests. Hunting bows fire faster and do less damage than war bows. War bows fire faster and do less damage than crossbows. Crossbows fire faster (well, reload faster) and do less damage than arbalests.
  8. J.E. Sawyer
    You can make either a dual-wielding fighter or a dual-wielding rogue who emphasizes Survival. Just because rangers get an automatic bonus in Survival doesn't mean other classes have trouble putting points in it. I usually reply to questions in the update thread on the day they are posted, but I was out sick yesterday and often have weird problems logging in from home.
  9. J.E. Sawyer
    Yeah, FF is definitely a deciding factor when I'm picking a spell to cast. There are a few foe-only ones that don't quite pack as heavy a punch as the friend-or-foes, but they are the tactically safe option.
  10. J.E. Sawyer
    When FF gets turned off, the effectiveness of all spells that could have FF goes up significantly. If a subset of AoEs are to be markedly powerful compared to alternatives, FF (or some equivalent) should exist as a drawback. This allows the player to choose between using powerful friend-or-foe AoEs, less powerful foe-only AoEs, and powerful targeted spells. When FF gets turned off, that middle category largely becomes obsolete and even the targeted spells logically get bumped down a peg.
  11. J.E. Sawyer
    First, I want to distinguish between Deflection and Damage Threshold. Deflection is what enemies attack, it's like AC in D&D. Deflection is derived from the character's class, level, and other bonuses from gear, spells, etc. Damage Threshold is what's used to reduce damage once you get hit and it comes mostly from the armor you wear, though heavier armor slows the character's actions (attacks, spells, etc.) down. The advantage to wearing lighter armor in PoE is a faster attack speed, which can lead to great offensive potential. If you wield a single-handed weapon with no shield, you will gain an Accuracy bonus, but not a Deflection bonus. A dude with padded armor and a rapier will attack frequently and with higher accuracy, but he'll be relatively easy to hit and take more damage. If you want a great Deflection, wear a shield and accept standard Accuracy (or even reduced Accuracy for heavier shields). If you want to soak a lot of damage, wear heavier armor.
  12. J.E. Sawyer
    Defender mode and Vigorous Defense (an active-use ability) helps fighters with bunches of enemies. They eventually get Guardian mode that lowers the fighter's Accuracy but increases Deflection for allies within a short range (modified by Intellect).
  13. J.E. Sawyer
    We don't have any plans to make FF a toggle. Our approach with difficulty is to add or remove enemies to change the tactical considerations of encounters and to hide or reveal information based on user preferences. FF is just a part of how some spells work and I don't think it's a good idea to make that something the player can toggle. It changes the values of those spells too much, IMO.
  14. J.E. Sawyer
    Our general approach to the stealth system is to use the current implementation unless it proves to be too simple in the long run. Other than time, there's nothing that prevents us from adding on elements like cones of sight and other tidbits, but we are, after all, replacing a system where failure and success came down to a die roll. It is extremely easy to make a stealth system that is overwhelming in complexity, so we're starting with something that is basic but feels like a solid starting point. Rogues in PoE qualify for Sneak Attacks in a large number of circumstances now, almost all of them being conditions on the target (e.g. Flanked, Prone, etc.). In the case of Flanked, the rogue doesn't even have to be one of the characters doing the flanking. Many of the other conditions are ones that rogues gain the ability to inflict. At higher levels, they gain additional bonuses if their targets are suffering from two or more of the qualifying conditions. So if there's a Flanked target that gets knocked Prone, the rogue gains even higher damage bonuses.
  15. J.E. Sawyer
    Attacks will result in impact animations using our Interrupt/Concentration system, which means that sometimes they will play and sometimes they won't depending on the attack being used and the stats of the attacker/defender. However, every time a character gets hit it will always play a particle effect (blood, flames, sparks, etc.).
  16. J.E. Sawyer
    Yes. Not all AoE spells are friend-or-foe, but many of the standards (e.g. Fireball) are.
  17. J.E. Sawyer
    Not that I care either way, and I like it, but honesty time: did you come up with that solely to address this issue? (I like the attention to detail though) The concept of adra was developed early on as a not-quite magical material that had some interesting properties. I like being able to have "impossible" structures, but I don't like hand-waving their impossibility away.
  18. J.E. Sawyer
    We are looking into either allowing you to scale the effect size or have the "bonus" area be a foe-only AoE. E.g., if you cast fireball and it normally has a radius of 4m, but it's grown to 6.5m because of your Int, the area added between 4m and 6.5m only affects enemies. We probably won't get to it for a while, but we've been thinking about it.
  19. J.E. Sawyer
    With regards to the attribute system, I've posted previously that players must play to the strengths of their builds. Character's won't automagically be great at everything. If you build a wizard with a low-Int, you're de-emphasizing AoE size and durations, which is fine. A lot of wizard spells have AoEs and durations, but a good number are also single-target/instantaneous. The power of the wizard is not in brute force, but overall flexibility. You can choose to stick to a subset of the wizard's spells, but you aren't taking full advantage of their greatest class strength (lots and lots of spells). Again, totally fine and should be viable. I haven't seen the post but someone said that there was discussion about the arches in the screenshot. I'm not sure if you can see the details of the arches, but the stones are actually held together with adra. Adra is a grown, shell-like substance that the Engwithans used both as structural elements and for binding purposes in their architecture. Often they would build things like traditional stone arches and grow adra in-between, using it like slow-growing mortar. As their buildings fall apart, it results in impossible-looking/gravity-defying ruins.
  20. J.E. Sawyer
    Wizard with high Might (Strength) and Dexterity: His fireballs will disintegrate enemies as they deal exceptional damage and are very accurate. He will also be good at walking on suspended ropes and moving large rocks. Wizard with high Intellect and Perception: "Hey look, I have huuge fireballs (sadly I need a few of them to kill a rat), but I *am* able to interrupt the rat's attack pretty often!" Please look at the character sheet in this update. The listed character has a 13 Might, granting +26% to Damage. Let's assume you're Pro Mighty and have an 18 Might. That's +36%. Or you're an Ordinary Joe with a 10 Might, which is +20%. Let's say a normal Fireball does 5-30 damage. Pro Mighty does 6.8-40.8. Ordinary Joe does 6-36. Ordinary Joe does not need multiple fireballs to kill a rat because his average damage is 21 vs. 23.8. Of course, these aren't the final values for the attribute modifiers, but proportion of advantage is important.
  21. J.E. Sawyer
    To be clear, that stat page is a mock-up and the text is still from PhotoShop. That said, the in-game text is much better looking because Brian found much better settings for it. There are still bugs to work out, but it's looking better in-game.
  22. J.E. Sawyer
    We're still working on exactly how much sub-class/order stuff we're actually going to do. I don't want to promise much on that front. Sorry.
  23. J.E. Sawyer
    Resolve is used in situations where the character's intensity, presence, or believability are the deciding factors. E.g., mental intimidation, inspirational leadership, a well-acted lie. Intellect is used for convincing people through logic, either persuasion or obfuscation. You could use Intellect to make a compelling case for something or you could use it to present a plausible (but made-up) scenario to explain yourself out of trouble. Strength is used for outright physical bullying and intimidation. E.g. picking people up, smashing things, imposing yourself, etc.
  24. J.E. Sawyer
    On the bright (much brighter, IMO) side, if you do bump your Int or Resolve, you're still getting a very real benefit out of doing so. A spellcaster with a high Int has impressively large AoEs -- heck, even a barbarian's Carnage is impressively large with a high Int -- so you will wind up affecting more people and probably doing more net damage (or granting more people bonuses for longer) overall.
  25. J.E. Sawyer
    That is a matter of tuning and overall impact. Just saying "Might affects damage" seems pretty compelling, but if I say, "Each point of Might adds 0.5% to Damage" that might be less valuable to players than each point of Constitution adding +10% to your Stamina and Health -- it doesn't/it won't, but that's just to illustrate the point. Everyone wants to do or heal more damage if they can, but everyone also wants to score more hits than misses, wants to be able to take hits, wants to interrupt enemy attacks, wants their effects to be big and have long durations, and wants to be able to resist being interrupted. I'm not under any illusions that this will be perfectly, objectively balanced system, but I believe people will be able to make a lot of different and interesting builds by emphasizing different aspects of their characters.
×
×
  • Create New...