.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Adhin
-
Posts
459 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Adhin
-
-
Diablo 3, yeah streamlined no real hit formula (though a dodge % so things can still miss a small amount depending on character/equipment). D2 though had a rather crazy to-hit formula that acted on a curve not only based on your attack rating vs there defense but also your level vs there level. (100*AR/AC+DR) was the basic formula before lvls get into play. Basically equal values (say 100 vs 100) net a 50% hit/miss, it takes 10 times the AC to get a 90% hit chance, and a 20 times to hit 95% (which is there cap). (100*AR/AC+DR)*2*(alvl/(alvl+dlvl).
Personally I don't like that formula, requires to much absurd inflation. Then again D2 had A LOT of systems or numbers in place to make you ignore them. XP tables where designed to make you glaze over when looking at it to make it, generally, more difficult to figure out the difference in levels. first few are tine but then it starts going odd ball curvy and 'never' ends in 0's. Last 5 digits always end up looking like someone just wacked there num-pad.
Anyway the current thing Sawyer mentioned kicking around, the idea of having a 'range' where beyond that point a glancing blow turns into a full on miss and using the same as a hit turning into a crit and the ability for talents to sway the ranges (in relation to whats 'required' to hit) I think is a good system in general. It kind of allows for everything and keeps the consistent, non-stop misses of early levels from plaguing beginners and there attention span (outside of story stuff of course).
Also ensures damage is at least being done sometimes for someone who does deep on defenses like that where as in DnD you could get it so they had a 5% chance to hit you, then because your AC was over a 20+AB they only had a 5% of that 5% hit chance of actually landing a critical hit (regardless of weapon type and build). Which can be further compounded by a concealment buff for 50% on top of that to just right out miss on that 5%. End up witha 2.5% chance of being hit and a .125% crit chance. And that's of many monsters above your damn level. DnD has been to exploitable (hense the whole 'munchkin' non-sense) and a system like this can bring that down while keeping the random and allow some wiggle room.
So... I kinda hope they go with there current idea + the miss/crit ranges on the outer edges of the hit/glancing blows with talents to shift those. That way your heavily defensive character will take a lot of glancing blows, some normal hits, and a good bit more misses then anyone else. I mean say a normal person gets hit 40% of the time, glances on 50%, leaves 10% 'misses'. Heavy Defense could easily be 20% getting hit, 60% glancing blows leaving 20% straight misses due to talent choices and a heavy focus on his defense stat.
-edit-
As a side note, the dodge, parry, riposte, block thing reminds me of EverQuest... saw those a lot. But each one was its own, separate stat. Still had a straight up hit/miss roll, and hit's where then rolled against the other stuff. A higher enough parry roll turned into a riposte I think but you could only get a limited number of those between your own attacks or something.. been a looong time.
-
They wont remove it... they can't... they... Lephys... *sighs*. So anyway I look forward to a spear setup for one of my classes, always liked shield/spear on druid types for some weird reason. As for vikings an axe is just about as cheap as a spear and vikings, in general, didn't have a single weapon. The whole Spear/Shield thing in ancient times also often had a backup gladious. Same with vikings, except usually an axe or 2.
Also cRPG didn't invent the blunt differentials that's been in DnD forever. Well before 3E but as of 3E the vast majority of blunt weapons have a 20/x2 crit modifier which is the worst of the lot but the vast majority of monsters have no resistance vs blunt weapons. Good chunk of golems can't even be hurt unless you have a blunt, most undead have some hefty immunity to slashing and piercing weapons. Zombies in 3.5 had something like 10/blunt. Meaning only way to bypass that 10 DR was with a blunt weapon.
In the end it makes sense, outside of massive sledgehammers most blunt weapons take a 2 or more swings to crack open a skull (or a real lucky solid hit). Kinda depends, either case the damage they produce is rather consistent regardless of protection... unless your, I dunno, in one of them dog biting suits. And who the ****s going into battle with one of those?
-edit-
Meant SHIELD/Spear, not sword >.>
-
It's sad how much I love seeing they'll have that in. Hope it means they have a lot more other stuff you rarely see in these games. That was probably my favorite part about ToEE, just the vast array of options compared to the rest of the DnD computer crossovers.
-
Oh god don't remind me. I played EQ for a few years, part of me misses the atmosphere of getting 5 people (including your self) together, finding a nice 'camping spot' and pulling singular enemies to the group to slaughter. You'd do that a few times till the priest is 'OOM'ing it up with some special 'water' to get the mana back. Certain combinations could keep your down on your ass for much longer periods of time. But in that setting it wasn't to bad, you, hopefully, had a good 4 other people to chat with for the few hours you where out doing what was ultimately an extremely boring affair over and over again.
Heh and dying oh man. Dying in that meant you may of just lost a months of 'work', depending on your level at the time. Freakin' spiked treadmill that game.
-edit-
In relation to all that, DAO did a good job of that. You auto-healed out of combat, had to heal in combat and they had a few ways to do that. Ultimately, PE has found a more complex way of handling that with less reliance on items and a higher reliance on characters them selves doing it. DAO was to binary in how it was handled (as was KotOR and all that). One reason im excited for PE, their nice alternative is surprising more complex but easier to manage (hopefully).
-second edit-
SPEARS, sure yall already read the email update which hasn't been -edite-blahblahblah-. But 1h and 2h spears evereh-buddeh! The one thing thats usually missing in everything =D
It's been posted hours ago, im just blind... heh heh.. >.>
-
@Lephys: Not surprising I agree with ya on all that, I think it'll help if everyone stops considering going unconscious mid battle equal to dying. I mean literally calling it dying when your just knocked out is... well guess that's a computer gaming trend. The amount of times I hear people call that 'dying' (even in gears of war, as an example, when your crawling to hopefully get revived). But this kinda game with there system just confuses people more.
I know its semi-half pointless to relate everything to the real lifes but that's one reason I like this system. Majority of wars fought back then ended with most the people downed being alive still. The cleanup involved generally was walking around finishing off everyone who hadn't bled out (in sometimes what may of been hours). Really freakin' messed up. Either way, love the stamina vs health system. Think it's current names for it (stamina/health) fit but could maybe benefit from a rename later.
I find it amusing, though, that anyone would think its diminished on the healing front. Removing the need to heal out of combat (which is the vast majority of times you'd do it in a DnD game of any sort), and instead doing it IN combat (from a variety of sources) and doubling up the health system in combat ultimately makes it more complex and involved. While, at least to me, keeping the boring part of it down. I mean, healing up mid fight is always less of a chore, to me, then out of combat - mostly because its a challenge then, when out of combat its just busy work that has to be done if I don't wanna rest every 5 minutes.
Soo yeah, yay for there new more complex, more involved system. Boo to blind whiners. Yay to laughter?
-
1
-
-
Yeah removing the attribute swaying from race to race because people think it pigeon holes them to much but want special powers? That doesn't make sense to me and, on top of that, if you want them to all be 100% equal point to point then why have races? It's like you just want to pick a base model and have what you are mean nothing more then clothing in a damn fable game.
There is a reason races have bonuses and negatives. With out that you remove all the flavor of playing that class. And I don't want 'special powers'. Don't need elves shooting laser beams out of there eyes (unless thats a cipher/mage ability or something).
-
I can understand the want to remove attributes for 'more freedom' but that kind of kills the flavor. I mean if your looking at a halfling vs a half-orc, if there isn't some kinda innate strength difference somethings just wrong. So I wouldn't really like it if that part went away. That and a +1 (-2 or +2 to a stat) in 3E isn't a 'huge' difference, its enough to add flavor with out completely gimping you.
As for favored classes... yeah. It always felt a bit bizar, or like there should be a list of favored ones instead of a single. As far as bonus talents or skills or feats or whatever I like the stuff Sawyer has mentioned so far. Something about level requirements for talents that race and class could lower. Say 10 for weapon focus or mastery and fighter and elves would be able to obtain it at 4 or 5 to show there learning with it with out heavily impacting other setups. I like that way of thinking.
-
Yeah it's also one of those easily hand wavy things in a PnP setting you just don't have access to in cRPG's. I mean the DM can't just show up and go 'ok you put all that crap in your cart and your at town and you sold it all and its worth blah blah blah'. A computer game is literally made up of all the moments movies, books and PnP often glaze over because no one generally wants to deal with it one by one.
I prefer it being kept to a minimum, though I do like the little 'junk' stuff you'd get in DAO (with the sell all junk button). Added a bit of flavor outside of just bonus gold. But bonus golds a hell of a lot easier to deal with then having to shift through it to find out whats worth selling. Really do love there shared pack and stash idea.
Also, I really hope animals don't drop anything. Unless its a pelt of body parts or something your taking from them. Odd copper from the belly or ring I could see if they where into eating people. Some animals will eat bizar things for no good reason but... getting swords and 'random gold pile' always kinda breaks me outa things. Infinity games didn't do that though, extremely unlikely PE will either.
Still... bleh.
-
I really like the idea of glancing blow AoE upgrade or part of rage that has friendly fire (like a fireball) in settings that apply. My personal example barbarian, mind you, focused heavily on individual targets. He'd get very focused on what he wanted dead and make damn well sure that thing was dead. He didn't even have the cleave feats. Had crippling blow, imp power attack, could teleport directly to what he wanted to die first.
All of it was oriented around ignoring everything but his current target. Which is vastly different then the idea of the whole AoE glancing blow for every swing (or at least stuff in front of/to the side). Soo... well...hmm. I'd say it should be an upgrade. In fact I'd love to just see a list of different upgrades for rage beyond it just being its self. But yeah stuff like the not passing out even at 0 stamina till rage ends as an upgrade. Some kind of intimidation aura, that inflicts penalties on a roll of some kind.
As for something really new to the list, rage affinities. By that I mean either something you pick at level 1 (think school specializations with wizards... sort of) that permanently alter how your rage works and levels to some extent. Generally Rage is rage and this would add a bonus and a negative to add flavor beyond the norm. Had some idea for that with a mod once, but also the Barb/Psion I've mentioned had a Blood Affinity on the NWN PW I played on, they had a system of 5 types. So I'll use that as the examples.
So the 5 where basically the 4 main elements, Earth, Wind, Water, Fire and then Blood (could consider that body). Blood gave basically vampiric damage but you lost health per round. So you'd basically kill your self if you weren't fighting which, the vampiric regeneration beat out the negative regeneration enough to make it a general bonus... it just had a bit more danger involved really (more so with how NWN handled vampiric regeneration... completely randomly).
Fire got fire dmg on attack and a fire shield but you took more physical dmg. Earth had physical immunities (up to about 40% I think at max levels) but made you slower. Water added concealment (kinda pointless since it didn't stack with buffs, always felt it should of been dodge AC bonuses amongst other things) but made you miss more often (also felt that was a bad penalty). Wind made you faster walk/run with bonus attacks. You lost actual damage and con bonus as the penalty.
Personally I love the idea of picking an affinity either at level 1 as a base mechanic, maybe lessen the base rage bonus (like +3 dmg instead of +5) while adding a bonus/negative effect due to the said affinity. They could be animal based (Bears, Wolves, that kinda thing). Though I feel elemental/blood related stuff allows for more interesting changes.
-
1
-
-
Same reason they spell it Berserker not Berserkr (closer to the original spelling). Because its the description we provide. I mean **** the vast majority of class names are basic descriptives of what they do. Barbarians are Barbaric in how they fight. I mean whats Fighters? They... fight stuff? Congrats so do all the other classes. Thief in older games was to direct, so they renamed it to Rogue which is a bit more broad and all the stuff they gets with in that broad sweep. Back to Berserker, what Berserker means, and what it originated from? 2 wildly different things. And your not forced to dress up in bear skins and cut your self while howling wildly in RP to trigger you Berserker rage either for that matter. Its inspired by, but not a direct relation.
If I see a guy go into a rage when he fights, im gonna think its Barbaric. Just how it is, someone who likes to kill people or things? Someone who loves that confrontation and prove hes the stronger? It's Barbaric. They could be the nicest person, most civilized guy this side of whatevers but when he fights hes a complete scary bastard about it. That's why im fine with the name because what it means in english today isn't what it was originally used for like so many other words we have.
That all said, not much else besides Barbarian or Berserker really fit. They're the only 2 words I can think of that actually describe that. Anything else sounds to much like a title then a basic descriptive class name. That Barb/Psion I was talking about, in RP folks would often refer to him, as he would him self, as a Fury Warrior. But thats kinda a ****ty class name, once you have 2 words it's a title really when you think about it. Worked in the setting for a self descriptor instead of saying 'well im a Barbarian, rawr, also I have psionic powers! =D'.
So yeah, if you go far enough back like your thinking, barbarian and berserker really wouldn't fit (partly cause Berserker wouldn't really exist in that form). Hell english as we know it didn't really. So yeah... skill and mechanics, better off ignoring whatever they decide to call the class.
-edit-
As a side note, and not entirely relevant. Always disliked Diablo calling one of there 'characters' a Barbarian, which was literally the name of those people (they called them selves barbarians). That was pretty bizar. Least the necromancers had another name and that was the actual class name. Different game, not really relevant as class/background are rolled into 1 in those games. Still, silly stuff.
Kinda weird sorc showed up as one of the most hated, it's the thing you get seen played the most in a lot of games.... just bizar. Makes me wonder what kinda communities are actually part of the polls heh.
-
Well, I don't agree with you on the name. Sounds like you have some bizar personal issues with it though, and hey opinions and all that. Also there isn't an 'upper limit' on wisdom. Maybe your thinking of Half-Orcs hit on int and cha? No class limited stats, some 'required' a base value to cast spells but that was about it. You could play a 18 wis Barb if you wanted and enjoy the RP with +4 wis save bonus from it. Fit quite nice with the +2 will saves you get when ya rage, throw in a little iron will and your ripe for resisting mind stuff.
Drop the culture background, hope they call it something else all you want. Doesn't really matter to me, Im fine with the name Barbarian or Berserker. Both are descriptive of there way of fighting. They're barbaric and can go berserk when they fight - both titles fit, ancient insult or no. **** people call people use all kinds of words as insults that aren't, ultimately, very insulting or meant as one at its base.
I agree on the whole think of interesting ways to evolve the class (and hopefully some dev shows up and gives some barb details). But you gadda let you Barb name hatred go. I love the class, I'm fine with the name, and I've never really seen Barbarians being some kinda unfavored, rarely played class in any game featuring it. It may not be peoples first pick but if its not its often there 2nd or 3rd. If you wanna look up poles, look up ones that're most hated. Since that's what your binary way of thinking is implying with the class name. Or better yet take the original advice - just ignore it. Think up skill stuff.
-
I'm sorry but illiteracy does not make you dumb. I was up till the 10th grade and I am not, nor was I an idiot. Rather not go into any more details then that... that aside, I've always felt that was a complete bull**** 'part' of being a Barbarian in 3E. It should be something you specifically choose as part of your character (given it makes sense.. illiterate wizards kinda a silly and impossible thing).
INT, in general, can be a dump stat but it also doesn't make the person a complete moron. They need to have INT and WIS below 8 for that to happen. Either one above 8 and they're speaking normally. Keep in mind in DnD, Wisdom is also a 'smarts stat'. Int in DnD is your ability to memorize stuff. Wis is your ability to understand things and learn from experiences. INT reads a book to figure out how something works, WIS just figures it out on there own.
In either case ALL of that is irrelevant to what I was saying about read/writing in tribe/clans. Barbarian class isn't the social class/job that would be handling that or would be required of them so weather or not they learned would be a personal preference (or luck of schooled upbringing of some kind). Where as a Wizard in said same situation would have to for the sake of there spells and by virtue of there job/class - know how to as a requirement.
-edit-
Oh and the Barbarian Illiteracy nonsense in DnD is the kind of BS im talking about as far as race vs class. Barbarian, in 3E, for whatever reason has racial oriented culture stuff that shouldn't be in the class such as that. Granted you can work that bit into a barb class growing up anywhere, and just say he never learned, good bit of the classes should have that too though and really should be a racial trait instead. Humans, depending on where they originated from in the world and the culture there. Only exception I can think of are priests and wizards where the written word is of extreme importance to there way of life outside of there cultured up bringing.
-
Yes! emotional and physical power. Why I loved comboing it with a Psion, representation of just raw unbridled emotion propelling the physical. Just makes you wanna punch stuff thinking about it, rawr!
-
I don't think Illiteracy plays to much into this. For most cultures, even tribal (least in fantasy settings) the shamans (wizards/priests) would be the ones who 'do' write things down. I can see a Fighter or Barbarian in a more tribal or clan based not writing things down but they'd have a written language the wizard could use for there tombs.
All that aside, I hope they take a bit of the 4E approach and do 'some' racial talents beyond just forced lvl 1 bonuses. I still would like some base lvl 1 bonuses based off race but getting some talent based stuff for race for progression would be nice. Sawyer mentioned I think in one of his other blog/forum things about how say a weapon focus talent may have a base level, say 10, but a fighter or an elf could get Sword Weapon Focus at level 4 or 6, giving race and class kind of advantage.
I can't wait for some Barbarian specifics though, really wanna know what there currently planning.
-edit-
Man completely forgot about the big weapon stuff I had written out first. My favorite Barbarian I've ever played was actually a Barbarian/Psion who dual wielded. Which is a rather reckless way to fight. Not sure I'd say 'big weapons' but maybe full size dual wielding along with 2h'ers would make sense. Full sized with single hand or 2hand instead of short swords?
Wouldn't matter to me, either way, but I'd rather not them try to pigeon hole a weapon style into the class like 'you wont get bonuses if you don't use 2-handers'. Generally Rage, speed, and Resilience is already far more then a Fighter 'can' even get in DnD. Well except the epic DR stuff for 9/-. But then a Barb can also get that. In NWN my 40 Barb/Psion had 14/- base with it, pure Barb coulda have 19/- + 10/- from belt (I had bracers with the 10/-). Guy could tank like a champ with 900+ hp enraged.
Anyway some kinda big weapon or reckless fighting stance stuff as a easy buy in for talents (barb getting access to it early on, power attack stuff too) would be nice.
-another-edit-
With the writing, good example is look at Vikings again. They where a culture based around telling deeds and stories, word of mouth not the written word. As such there is just huge amounts of things we don't know due to lack of records. But they still had a written language, many of there actual mythology was based around knowledge and written word. As Savage as there way of life was, there prime god, Odin was the god of wisdom and knowledge. Just felt like throwing that out there.
-
Yeah, I'd love to see a collision interactive particle stuff for floors. Leaves, dusts, stuff that 'sweeps aside' as you walk past it. They could do grass like that though i doubt they will but a little bit of that here and there for taller stuff would be nice.
-
Yeah besides Barbarian being one of my favorite things to play (Druids and Necromancers being the other 2 main ones) I've spent yeeeaaars thinking about this stuff. Been modding stuff since mid 90s, working on a D2 mod since 2004. Been re-doing a lot of RPG gameplay mechanics in that quite heavily (had it doing relatively close to 3.5 rules for awhile).
I think you have 2 main aspects to the Barbarian as far as mechanics to differentiate it, its Rage (the signature ability, what truly makes him different) and passives that represent his life style. This is often done in aspects of his toughness. Damage Reduction (DT in this case), higher health, poison, disease, elemental resistances. Movement speeds something that's also a common one, which I've always enjoyed.
As a side note, movement speed (barb or otherwise) I hope they only have it trigger in combat. Never liked it when you have 1 character just blazing faster then everyone.
-
I'd rather see the favoured fight, lets call it, function kinda like a sustained in DA2. Basically, you get dmg and attack bonus (or lets say speed bonus or whatever) depending on how many enemies there are around you. I mean if your a Barbarian its less about a specific type and more about finding an extreme challenge. You want to fight, you want to just let go and be wild in combat, its what you live for. So the idea of getting a bonus due to enemy power, say in there volume or because its a giant ass dragon (or giant heh) getting bonuses to that would make sense to me.
I mean, whats the difference between a man and a bear to a mad brawler? Bears a better challenge!
-edit-
Also, Chaos Unleashed... yeah I like that =P
-
Yeah I could see that, but then it should be Dwarf style, where they have special training against giants instead of a Ranger style selection as that shows a personal interest instead of an upbringing. I guess that would make more sense as a kinda of background trait thing you select at the start and that's that. Like I said though that's a race thing not a class thing though. I generally dislike heavy culture influence in the class its self since the class is not meant to be a background, it's meant to be a way of life or a job of sorts.
For instance in any given culture you have multiple jobs, even with in the military. Different fields of expertise, way of living ones life with in said culture. With my Dwarf example Dwarves (of a certain type) all learn to fight against giants due to where they live, and how they live, that parts cultural. The way they fight however depends on the dwarf in question outside of that. He maybe a heavy armored shield and axe dwarf, he maybe a rogue, maybe hes a cook and beats people with a frying pan I dunno but Barbarian is the 'class', the job, the way of live beyond your upbringing.
So, generally speaking, I think culture should be left up to the race, and class should be a blank slate you can fit to any of the 'cultures. That's all I've been trying to get at, folks need to separate that and think of how the Barbarian and his said rage would work in relation to his Soul powering it. Then how that could evolve or effect that person, regardless of race or culture.
As for Risk/Reward I agree and it looks like that's what they're going for. In 3E after your rage ends you get winded for a set number of turns. Which means while your more powerful and more awesome while you rage, once its over your almost as comparably weaker for awhile after it ends. It's a balancing act with in that, you want to preferably kill your targets before you tire your self out basically. On top of that the bonus HP you gain, and subsequently lose after the rage ends can knock you out after you rage - regardless of if that fight is over or not. There are plenty of facets to Rage, and how that life style would effect your body (toughen you up, base DR bonus?) - none of which have to do with your racial upbringing.
-
Yes, 3E actually had a lot of good stuff to alter your rage. Terrifying Presence was one of my favorite things (sadly it was an 'Epic' ability, vast majority where). But basically it used your intimidation check for what amount to a paralyzing fear aura around your barb when he raged. Had plenty of other effects beyond that such as general improvements and stuff that could defen people and... yeah. I think fitting a lot of different paths of effects based off Rage is my prefered way to work a Barb class in relation to others. It's there major unique trait.
Granted you can do special paths for what kind of 'resilience' you are. Elemental types, more physical, maybe a base in combat stamina regeneration though I think that bit goes against how they intend to make the Rage work in PE. Think the little they've mentioned involves it having a conflict with your stamina, becoming winded easily... perhaps the rage costs Stamina. In away that's a lot like the Berserk PrC in 3.5E.
Berserker PrC cost you life per round while you where Berserking but it had an interesting setup. Such as Deathless Rage which basically made you immune to death spells and keep you from dying while you where in a Rage. That part, the not dying while in rage even when your stamina/HP hits 0 I think is one of the more interesting 'upgrades'. Reminds me of the Veitnam stories of korean soldiers going berserk and killing a bunch of soldiers before they dropped dead after there adrenaline subsided.
Also, again... Barbarians aren't Rangers but definitely are survivalists. Not sure why a Berserker would have a favoured enemy to be honest. The concept of that for a Ranger is they would have a certain number of issues with in the range they protect (which is why there called Rangers in the first place, not because they often use bows). For instance say your Ranger is the ward of a section of land, that maybe plagued by goblins. Your Ranger would have a favoured enemy towards Goblins due to that. That's the whole reason that exists, not sure how that would fit to a Barb.
As for War Crys... yeah, though again I think that should be linked to the rage and a general aura (dnd style aura) that could come with it (given you took the talent/abilities). Think generally the War Crys will be on the Paladin due to how they plan to set him up more as a 'Champion' like class. He'll have a lot of military based yelly stuff. Not sure they'll want to do to much cross over with that.
I could see the stealth but only so far as ambushes are concerned. I'd still prefer, in general, if we ignore 'culture' as the reasoning for the barbarian though I like the idea of bonuses with stun/knockdowns. But that's more of a way of life then being brought up in one place or another. Rich vs street thug kind of thing, same area, same culture, different upbringings. Guess you could consider that different culture just... I really don't like the whole jungle tribe nonsense people keep tacking onto them. Just doesn't fit.
-
Now that, right there, Kaz I wouild 'love' as part of the Rage ability. Blancing blows to adjacent, even friendlies. Would make you think more about using it, when to use it, where to use it. Also I've literally never thought about Conan when thinking of Barbarian class. Not sure why folks ever bring it up hes the furthest thing from the class. He may of come off as a bit of an idiot in the movies but he still wasn't a rager. That and in the novels the second he got the coin for it he was decked out in plate.
I think to many people get stuck on the word Barbarian and assume its the whole ancient roman/greek 'tribes people'... which where Germanic/Scandanavians (mostly Germanic). When really its meant to reflect there fighting style, they're barbaric when they rage, and in there base fighting. Generally speaking someone who lives like that will probably also come off as a bit Barbaric in general regardless of there place of upbringing. Why its named that, base 3E just used 'northern tribes' as an example (which, again, was based off Viking culture in Forgotten Realms). Less 'tribal' more Clans. Think Scandanavian/Scottish (be surprised how much they intermingled into the later eras) and you have a better idea of what im talking about.
Folks need to drop the Tribe association, doesn't make sense... that and Conan.
-edit-
Also, lol at raging on craft. I know I would, but then, its hard to find a crafting system in a game I don't rage at (or fall asleep from the sheer boredom of).
-
1
-
-
I don't really understand this thread but Barbarian is one of my favorite classes. I never viewed rage as a 'blind rage' though a few tend to RP it that way. Vast majority of Barbarians I've roleplayed with didn't actually take the 'dur dur idiot' route. Nor is the class ever really setup or forced into that. That and the 'rage' thing is very berserkr oriented, not Greek/roman labled outsiders.
Main reason I see the class failing in poles is, at least on 'this' forum, the fast majority of people seem to view the Barbarian as a Fighter/Warrior with a bonus power. And I can partially see why, in DnD it's one of the few classes that kinda has a near-forced background. Though you can still spec into barbarian after you've already started your character so its not... really a background. I doubt they'll have multiclassing like 3E/Pathfinder to be honest though. Either way I think tagging the barbarian with a 'you came from a tribe!' as part of the class a bit silly since that's generally not what a class is meant to signify.
To be, the Barbarian 'class' is a warrior that, through rage, fights barbaric comparatively. That's what the Rage is, a reckless freedom on the battlefield. Think Vikings, Berserkr shamans or not, the vast majority of Vikings reveled in combat. I mean that's what to go a viking is. They weren't a 'people' it was a word, they went a viking. They went to war, they pillaged, raised, they thought death through combat was there ticket to Valhalla.
Now take that same love and reckless freedom in combat and mix it into the idea the Barbarian's Rage (a Barbaric fighter) in PE will be soul based. That being his rage, his abilities to let go, increase his strength and endurance is him literally tapping into his soul power and you have a rather terrifying warrior on the field. I personally love that idea of a warrior over the basic disciplined learned warrior which is why I'll be playing a barbarian first. It's why I generally always play one first, and they never have a tribal background.
I also don't really think 'totems' have to much a place with them, though I can understand, to some extent the animal association. That's what Berserkr is, really, bearskin raging warriors and all that. Anyway, like I said earlier, Barbarian to me is a free spirited warrior who enjoys combat to the extent of letting go in fights. To be that free and reckless is just something I always liked about the class, and it's something the other just don't have. It's not about them being 'naturists', that's the Rangers field, the Druids. They may live simpler lives but it's just not the same.
-edit-
As a side note, I think forcing the barbarian (or Berserker, which I think is the better class name) to witness something before they rage wouldn't work in the vast majority of combat scenarios. It could work in a action adventure (with or with out RPG mechanics) where they can script a bunch of events but in a infinity style game just... I don't see it.
I'd prefer it be something you manually trigger. I mean, any human can go into a berserk like state if they see something tramatic, that wouldn't make the barbarian or berserker very special. It's shown up in wars time and time again, anyones capable of it. The whole POINT of the class is to be able to do it your self, at will, instead of requiring some absurd situation to 'set you off'. Barbarians in DnD are just that, a controlled rage. Controlled Chaos. They're free, and reckless, and it's there choice, it's what they live for. It's not because they just saw there mom die and went crazy.
-
NWN and DAO didn't have GUI like MMO's. DAO had GUI like NWN. WoW (and subsequent MMO's) used GUI that was like NWN (came out first). And ultimately, NWN GUI was an evolution of BG interface which didn't allow you to place abilities where you wanted. NWN did. Personally I want a mix of NWN and IWD2. I want NWN ability to set stuff 'where I want it' in order but have weapon sets and the like outside of the skill hotkey. That was NWN biggest issue as far as I was concerned, the 36 bind boxes was all they had and you had to do everything via that. Pretty sure DAO didn't have that issue.
Either way, NWN/DAO =/= MMO GUI, it just doesn't. Anyone who thinks they're straight from MMO's seriously haven't played very many MMO's. The vast majority do a poor job at copying how WoW has it setup.. and the only thing it has in common with WoW is your ability to order skill hotkeys how you want in a bar. So, not wanting MMO GUI? Yeah, I don't want that either for the most part, they tend to be a tad inefficient due to there bag systems (which exist to be a convoluted progress system). But to single out NWN and DAO as bad examples and liking them to MMO's in general is... doesn't make sense to me really.
And of course, none of that has aaanything to do with hit and miss so... that's all off topic really. Sorry.
-
UI with hotkeys, welcome to the 80s? I don't think anyone wants hotkeyless GUI. Folks just don't want each character to have to deal with a rotation. Which... I mean why would anyone want to deal with a rotation when you have 6 characters in a party? The whole reason you have a rotation in an MMO is to give you something to do, constantly, cause your just 1 person. As much as Guild Wars 2 tried to break away from that, they still had it. And they did it in such away that you had little choice in what you had available. Your choice mostly came down to what weapon to use and... yeah.
It'll be like the infinity games, but with a new class system designed by Obsidian influenced from 3E, with some 2E and 4E influences (where they did some good stuff). That means less rotation and more uses per rest, or uses per encounter with fighter types having more passives then active abilities and mages having oodles of spells. My barbarians rotation will be rage, smash ****. Not Rage, jump attack -> mighty attack -> super enraged mighty blow! rince repeat cause I got 5 other dudes to pay the hell attention to.
-
1
-
-
Far as im concerned 3E/3.5 was the best thing to happen to DnD outside of it being created in the first place. It's a damn good base ruleset, pathfinders managed to keep evolving it. 4E still had some good ideas in it but it definitely went a bit to far in MMO'y territory for most peoples liking. Which is a bit sad, cause it does have some good ideas. They handle HP progression better (or at least I prefer it more), the idea of encounter powers for lower end stuff to allow mages and other classes to have stuff to do in each fight while keeping higher end stuff heavily restricted is a nice one.
-
1
-
Josh Sawyer on Miss and Hit
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted
Also a big difference between loosing control of your 1 character and losing control of some of your 6 characters. Losing control of your entire party (which happened in BG a looot) did suck and usually resulted in a reload. Pretty bad when 2-3 of them got controlled or hit by an insanity effect and the rest ran scared of everything and you just kinda sat there watching your own guys kill your own running guys and just... yup, reload cause that's bad.
Basically I think mass or rapid fire effects like that tends to ruin fun real quick, and it often results in reloads and a quick trying to figure out how to stop them from the mass disability non-sense. Personally I think heavy disability stuff, in a party vs party game should be single target for the vast majority, and anything in group should be short lived. Disabling 1 of your enemies is a good tactical advantage... mass holding the whole lots just kinda stupid and boring.