Hiro Protagonist II

I knew you couldn't resist. That's not what I said. Stop making stuff up and telling lies. This is why I will always correct you with you posting this nonsense, because you either, take what people like me say out of context, or just plain make stuff up, and then trying to point out that person is wrong. eg. strawman tactics. It's a tactic you use all the time. I never said Aragorn was a town guard in a small village. I never even brought Aragorn up. That was you who brought Aragorn up and you were wrong then. And I never said they had to be the "exact same guard clones, with no need for variance in their skill/quality/toughness whatsoever". Those are your words, not mine. I even said a town and city can have different level guards, level 2 guards in a town and level 3 guards in a city. Here is the quote for you considering you have a problem with reading and comprehension. Also, I agree with W.MacKinnon that you can have lieutenants, captains, commanders and all sorts of different ranks at different levels in the town/city guard. Those are different types and ranks of guards and not the same as your normal guard. A normal guard should not be level 12 because you are level 12. Anybody with an ounce of common sense and intelligence would know that was what I was talking about in relation to normal guards.

Well you are a troll. There was a legitimate discussion going on. And who has taken this off topic? It was you. You came in and started ranting at me. You're a troll, a jerk and you have serious issues. I pushed your buttons and angered you? How? By posting and agreeing with another poster (W.Mackinnon)? Lephys does his usual 'comes into thread to disagree routine' and I post points showing Lephys is wrong. You then come in out of nowhere and start raving like a lunatic. That's all you are Fforsesoon. A troll who likes to rant at others, backbench moderate, tell others what to do and derail threads. Some serious issues with you if you watch a thread and can't either contribute to the discussion or walk away. No, the default for you is to troll, derail and attack myself at what seems any given opportunity. How about putting me on ignore if my posting angers you so much? No? Then why the hell do you read my posts if you can't control yourself? Get some help.

Where do I start? I could write pages. Here's an easy one. See below. And what does payroll have to do with anything anyway? What? You're now saying he's not on the payroll but will protect Townsville? So what was the point of you saying, "Friggin' Aragorn is not going to be on the payroll to protect Townville". This comes across as you suggesting he wouldn't be protecting townsville because he wasn't on the payroll. It's crap like this that makes me wonder how you're NOT doing this intentionally. You say stupid things before even thinking and then when someone calls you out, 'you're misunderstood'. 'Oh, that's not what I meant'. No, Lephys. Just admit you were wrong and stop squirming out of this. On one hand you say guards don't need level scaling and yet you said: "Again, the overall general idea is "If you can progress all the way to level 12, you should get to actually put that progression to good use. Thus, the closer you get to level 12, the closer to level 12 foes should generally become." No, that is wrong. Foes like Guards should not be level 12 just because you have progressed to level 12. And that was my point! Stop going off on tangents, backtracking and trying to make out you're being misunderstood. You're wrong. It's not that I perceive what you say is nonsense. It is nonsense. Plain and simple. And I'm sure you can't resist yourself to come back into the thread. I await your response.

ah Ffordesoon. At it again. Trolling from the sidelines. I was actually agreeing with W.Mackinnon on his post and it was Lephys that is arguing and debating the point. Why don't you have a go at him for his incorrect analogies, his incorrect points? No? Easier to attack me because you have some weird problem with me. But not Lephys who won't let it rest, even though he is wrong. And nice way to deflect your backbench moderating onto me when it's been you who's been backbench moderating. You really do have some problem with some posters on this forum. Looks like I know how to push your buttons. All I have to do is post. That's some serious issues you have there. Here's a tip. Get a life. So you agree with Lephys that you should have level scaling and guards at the same level as you? Or do you agree with W.Mackinnon, Stun, myself and others who say guards should stay at the same level throughout the game?

And it's perfectly feasible they are not better skilled or trained. And wrong with Aragorn. Aragorn and his rangers were protecting Townville (The Shire). If you're going to quote Lord of the Rings, perhaps reading it or doing some research might help before you go off on wild tangents and incorrect analogies. You've also missed the point. That Podunk town could have guards from the City. Therefore they would be the same level. And why is an assassin way more trained than a bandit if they are both Rogues? All I see is they both have two different skill sets. The bandit could have different skill sets that are more potent than the assassin. This is the case in D&D 4th ed. The rogue is a better class to play than the assassin. You don't fight Beholders at Level 1? Really? You don't fight Dragons or Demi-Gods at level 1 either. So what is your point? No. Guards don't need level scaling. And my entire post was all about guards which I agreed with W.Mackinnon which you seem to agree and now disagree with. Either make up your mind. You are for or against level scaling for guards compared to your character progression. Also, I wouldn't call a guard in a town at level 2 and a guard in a city at level 3 as level scaling if those guards remain at that level throughout the game. As I said before, guards can be level 2 or 3 in D&D terms. Guards should not be level 12. It doesn't make sense at all. No reason for them to be level 12, not in the story, not in the game world. Not at all.

They don't need to be tougher foes. They don't even need to be at a higher level. They can be at the same level as guards in another city. The difference in your example is there are more guards in a city than a trading hub. And that's where the challenge changes. Your party are against 2 or 3 guards in a trading hub compared to 7 or 8 in a city. This is one way our DM can change a possible encounter. eg. More guards means more time to despatch them which means more time for enemy Mages to get off more spells. No need for level scaling by making the guards stronger. And from a story sense and what our DM explained to us in D&D terms, guards are usually going to be around level 2 or possibly 3 in Heroic Tier. Not level 8 or 10. From the DMG: Even 1st-level characters are heroes, set apart from the common people by natural characteristics, learned skills, and some hint of a greater destiny that lies before them.

Here however, you have top side view, with large verity of different actions and creatures, with main goal is to distinguish each as much as possible in away that would be best viewed from our preservative, so it seem to me what you suggest is really counter productive. And that's why Titan Quest with ragdoll physics feels much better than Torchlight 2?? That's why Diablo 3 and Grim Dawn feel much better than Path of Exile? You have to have rag doll physics in games, emphasis on the PHYSICS as in physicality which brings immersion to the world! I'm a huge fan of games like Diablo 3 and Titan Quest and like the rag doll physics in these games. Not because they bring realism to the games, but because they're hilarious to see a chandelier drop on a group of monsters and see them fly a hundred metres in the air, to hit someone and see them fly across the room or in the case of Diablo 3 kill someone and see them stretch across the screen like a rubber band. Dead rubber band guy on the screen. Obviously something wrong with the physics in the game, but funny nonetheless. It's totally ridiculous and fun at the same time. And it doesn't even make sense that a chandelier would make someone fly in the air. Seriously, think about it. A chandelier drops on someone in real life and it would crush them. Not make them fly in the air. Personally, I don't want to see rag doll physics in PoE because it would turn what I believe a serious game into something comical and detract from the realism they're going for. I do want to see chunky death though, because that was good to see in the original IE games.

This is very close to what our DM does. And it makes sense that as a general rule, guards in one city will be similar to guards in another city. It doesn't make sense that guards in City 1 are level 3 and guards in City 2 are level 10, just because you arrived at City 2 when you're level 10. It's totally immersion breaking and I have to wonder if I'm actually fighting guards in City 2 or if half the realms of adventurers decided to retire in City 2 just before I arrived.

I was hoping for some critical hits / chunky death like in the IE games.

I didn't miss anything. You said Frodo dropped the ring into the magma. He didn't drop it into the magma. But nice dodge and weave by going on about all this nonsense and trying to deflect it back onto me. And I'm not hell bent on correcting people. It's not hard correcting you with so much wrong in your post. And you must have an inferiority complex to accuse me of feeling superior by correcting you. Idiot, stupid Request. It's all the same. You asked for specific designs between a Rogue and Fighter against enemies where no one on this board can supply. Contract those two and you have an idiot request by Lephys. So Rogues don't do more damage than Fighters? When did this change? Can you show us where in the updates that Rogues don't do more damage than most of the other classes? That other classes like the Fighter do more damage than the rogue? And if a Rogue goes up against 1 Kobold and a Fighter goes up against 1 Kobold, who's going to dish out more damage in the first attack in combat? Going by the updates, it appears the heavy hitters are going to be the ones dealling out more damage against that one Kobold.

In 4th ed, they're swashbucklers under the name of rogue. Thief is its own class in 4th ed and not a Rogue. So you can create either a Thief or a Rogue and they have different abilities. Also, in media they do just as much if not more damage as with my examples. Robin Hood, Jack Sparrow, the swashbuckler type of Fighter/Rogue.

You recall incorrectly as always. Because it was Gollum who destroyed the ring and not Frodo. Also an idiot request since the game hasn't been released. It's been confirmed Rogues are the heavy hitters in PoE and do more damage than Fighters. Hence, the heavy hitter title. So who would do more damage to the enemy in the least amount of time? The Rogue that can do a lot of damage to an opponent or the Fighter who chips away round after round? I wouldn't have a problem renaming the Rogue as Swashbuckler in PoE because that's essentially what they are. The Robin Hood, Jack Sparrow type of swashbuckler. Not the Thief / Burglar type like Bilbo Baggins.

Bilbo or Frodo should be able to do more damage in combat than Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas or Gandalf. That's called balance.

The sneaky thieves, the cat burglars have been turned into swashbucklers. The Bilbo Baggins sneaking around halfling type thief is now the Errol Flynn Robin Hood or Jack Sparrow type Rogue. When you have so many types of characters and classes under the one umbrella of 'Rogue' then some of those types will fall by the wayside with new systems/games to make them useful in combat. Now you have a Swashbuckler with thieving abilities.

I don't understand why the narration for IWD 1 sucks. I thought it was great. I also liked the narration for the BG games as well.

No one is saying you should be able to memorise all the spells. I've only played pnp 2nd ed for a couple of months in 1990. And that was a Thief. After that no D&D until BG was released. And I only recall the mage in our pnp game used Magic Missile and Identify. That was it. So I was pretty much new to this as well. You don't need to be a D&D veteran to be able to read the spell descriptions. That's just basic reading. I've never played 3rd or 3.5 edition pnp at all. And yet I could still work out how to play IWD 2. All the different feats and stuff was bewildering to me and yet I did something that seems to be lacking with a lot of gamers today. I read things like a manual, I read descriptions on what things do. And no, I didn't need to spend a week reading. I could read something in a minute or less and understand what this or that did. I took the time to read and learn. For some reason, if it's not handed to you in less than 5 seconds, it's all too hard. Seriously, how long does it take to press 'W' for your Wizard spell book, go through the numbered pages and find Dispel Magic and Remove Magic? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? It took me about or less than 5 seconds myself. Why the rush to need to know the answer this instant? Also, there a thing called trial and error. Experimentation. You read and try a fireball, does massive damage. Read the description a bit more and think, yeah I'll keep using this one. Try something else, and it's a piss weak spell. Think to myself, well that wasn't great, I won't use that. Try something else instead. And I have no idea what you mean by shaky translation of the system. As I said, I only had a couple of months with it back in 1990. And why does it matter? I have no idea why that would even matter considering the rules in BG are quite easy to follow, provided you're willing to do some reading. You don't need to go back to the 2nd ed Players Handbook to read up and understand how spells work. Also Kaine, one of the issues seems to be reading and understanding what the spells do. Ffordesonn either read the spells and assumed they were the same, or didn't read the spells and assumed they were the same. If it's the former, then he misinterpreted the descriptions, if it's the latter then he needs to read the descriptions. It would have been the same in NWN2. Not reading the descriptions properly.

You wouldn't do it for every spell. Like Magic Missile, Identify or Fireball. That's a bit of an exaggeration.

No need to memorise the 2nd ed players handbook. Just right click on the spell in the game and read it. It says it in one sentence. Not hard. Of is that too hard for you? And why do you need to go to the 2nd ed players handbook?

You stated something which isn't true. I was simply stating that these things are in the game. If a poster were to read things that were unfamiliar with the IE games or hadn't played them in a long time, they may take what you're saying to be true. Right click on the spell in the game gives you what the spell does. Reading the manual tells you the same and what class can use them. There is a list of Priest and Wizard spells in the manual. There's been a lot of criticism about the IE games and your post came across as another one of these criticisms that was completely unfounded.

Ah. See? I'm playing this thing right now, and scanning the spell descriptions like an illuminated text, and still simple stuff like this escapes me. And I am in the target audience! I was highlighting these two points you made. Saying they are the same spell which they're not, the difference being one is for the cleric and the other is for the mage which is not true (both spells are for the Mage and only one for the Cleric), and playing the game right now and not finding any difference between the two spells.

I'm saying the descriptions are in game as well in the manual. Even in the EE games with their manuals, they tell you what the spell is and give a complete list of Wizard and Priest spells. While the EE games may not have quick reference cards (seems another small failing on Overhauls part), although the GOG versions do, the list is still in the manuals. Also, it's no implication you can't read or comprehend English. It's more read the manual or spell descriptions. They tell you what they do. From BG EE manual: Dispel Magic. Even Elminster explains that you and your companions are also effected by this. Remove Magic There's going to be a lot of reading in PoE. And I expect the sort of manuals, with spell descriptions as it was in the original IE games.

The difference between those spells is that Remove Magic dispels only your enemies, while Dispel Magic also dispels your party members.Remove magic is used when your party members are standing near and you don't wish to dispel buffs from them, While Dispel is used when you aren't buffed or have an affliction on your party members like confusion or fear, to get rid of it. Also Mages get both Dispel and Remove magic, while priests only get Dispel. Ah. See? I'm playing this thing right now, and scanning the spell descriptions like an illuminated text, and still simple stuff like this escapes me. And I am in the target audience! Perhaps actually reading the spell descriptions? Right clicking on the spell tells you what it is. It says it in the first couple of sentences of the spell. If you're playing this right now, it's in the game. A Dispel Magic removes magical effects upon anyone within the area. Remove Magic. This is the combat version of Dispel Magic, it will only affect opponents. This is also explained in the manual. Also notice that I have Imoen selected in both cases and she's a Mage. And, the game comes with Quick Reference cards which also has the Cleric and Wizard spells listed. If you're having problems with stuff like this, as Josh Sawyer said with PoE, If you don't like to read, don't play this game.

Well you did ask why rogues can't be as good as fighters. Which implies there's something wrong. So you don't think it's true that there is an objective right or wrong in the debate concerning Rogues, especially in AD&D which you've referenced in your posts. That's how Obsidian are explaining their roles. Heavy hitters and tanks.

I always found games where you cannot die and be immortal to be less challenging as you can brute force your way through the game. Your health goes down to zero, you wait a few seconds and then you keep going. I found it odd when I first played a FPS that had this. Then care went out the window as I couldn't die.

You're right. Fireball is crowd control and I was using it against a single target and was a bad example as it's usually used against many targets. Against one target, it's not an effective use of the spell. But then looking at the lightning spell that can hit up to 3 enemies on a level 10 Wizard. 2d6 + 13 damage. You have to make three attack rolls, one against each enemy. And if all three hit then the average damage will be 20 on all three, total 60 damage. My example of a level 8 Rogue without the action point is average 48 damage. Of course more in damage if all three lightning bolts hit. But you would expect more damage with a level 10 against a level 8. If one misses, then it can do pretty much the same damage as the Rogue, due to Lightning Bolt having half damage with misses, but it would be still comparable to a lower level Rogue. And I wouldn't even look at single target spells, as they're even less powerful (in damage). Again this is comparing a higher level character to a lower level character with damage output on certain skills and powers. And you can see why our pnp group will have a rogue in our party. eg. Level 8 characters/encounters with a Rogue than can do massive damage.