Osvir
-
Posts
3793 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Osvir
-
-
I'm curious to see the modding updates and such.
-
I'm not drawing any connections to what I've read from P:E, I'm just drawing conclusions on what I'd hope to see. Some of them are half-joke half-serious too.
-
These are the conclusions I was drawing from their announced descriptions so far. (Wiki is blocked at my current location so I can't reference it.)
Rangers - Ranged weapon specialists
Paladins - Martial Cheerleaders--basically group oriented support characters.
Wizards - Will be storing their prepared spells in tomes to use for the day instead of D&D standard of using tomes to prepare spells for the day.
Priests - Narrowly focused battle-casters with a penchant for buffs and guns
Druids - ???
Fighters - Jack of all Trades for weapons -- Some offense, some defense. Not as effective as a specialist when dealing with a combat situation that caters to the specialist, but better at things than a specialist when the specialist does not specialize in the combat situation.
Rogues - Hit and run shadowy assassins
Barbarian - Raging warrior that can mitigate stamina damage taken while raging
Ciphers - Soul puppeteers and mind mages. Think Enchanter/Psion, only more so.
Chanters - Bards that don't have to concentrate on singing/playing to do so, but are limited to one AE buff at a time.
Monk - ???
I hope and thoughts and I'd also like to say "Depends on how you look at it":
Ranger: Woodsman, handles a knife just as well as a bow, but handles the axe and sword just as well. A Ranger lives and hunts secluded on their land. A Ranger is a loner, who wanders the mountains (Chuck Norris cowboy style). That's what a Ranger is. He hunts seasonally and takes care of the land in his own way, a survivalist. Good with a longbow, though the military Ranger favors the crossbow.
Paladin: Crusaders of some type, a Holy Order of soldiers notable in the world who believe blindly in their own chivalry, to them they spread light upon the world. To others they only rain blood and destruction. Deluded by their own madness the Paladin are straightforward slaughtering everything in their path. They love crossbows and fire. "Purge the unclean!" -> Run! A Paladin can also be defined as a White Knight, which is related to the Hero archetype.
Wizard: Deckard Cain! Stay a while and listen dammit!
Priest: Gun nuts, totally gun nuts. Also:
Notable for their kind smiles. They also like to burn heretics. Paladin and Priest hangs out at parties and mingles slightly but arrogantly.
Druid: Tree hugging fools really, but they do share aid to the lands and take care of it. Some can be evil, seldom do you find Druids gathered up close with one another, they share the same knowledge and the same respect, likewise they share the same sense of traveling. They are never satisfied with living in society, for whatever reason. Most profoundly at it's core is always a disgust and distrust for authority. Only evil Druids manages to sway over groups of dumb Bandits and become an authority themselves. Druids are arrogant.
Fighter: Is more of the "Hero" archetype. Difficult to define in place of background and into the world, it could be a soldier, a grunt, a young boy. The Fighter can be anyone, perhaps even a boy forced to be a Wizard but escaped before initation and became a Fighter instead. The "Fighter" is kind of, it isn't really a Class but more talking about a character's skill and occupation. A Job more than a title.
Rogue: Could be more of the "Adventurer" archetype. Difficult to define. A rascal, daring thieving, Han Solo springs to mind. A pirate, but could also just be a wanderer, a nomad on a pilgrimage. The Rogue could in many senses be seen as a Monk, but that smug smile is hard to wipe off. A charming individual who is great at dancing, smoking cigars, kissing and sleight of hand. The Rogue can get into many places by just talking, or throw a sleep dart surprisingly precise. Good at rowdy fist fighting and unusually takes one or two hits himself before going down (though the Rogue often finds some remarkably convenient solution and always comes out on top, McGyver). The Rogue can be seen as one of the cool kids in town, popular character that likes to be around people. Which is quite different from an Assassin. Tony Stark as a Tinkerer and Person is a Rogue as well, Iron-Man is a Fighter. It really is 2 different characters, with 1 soul. If Steampunk is in this game a Tinkerer Rogue would be awesome. Sherlock Holmes is a Rogue, and handles a gun well too.
Barbarian: If someone just burst out and said to you "You.. you.. you Barbarian!!" why would they call you a barbarian? A Barbarian is a vulgar person, someone who drinks a lot and swears a lot. A daring and in some weird way charming character. Strong and determined, easy-going. There's no real "Barbarian Stronghold" as being a barbarian is more of a personality thing. It's not like someone yells "Argh it's a caveman from a mountain cold icetop!!" when you see a barbarian.
Cipher: Devious shady characters of society, infiltrators and spies, in many ways a Rogue. They gain this characteristics due to their ability to do everything much faster than a Rogue, in a different way. Though the Cipher is not nearly as adept at bartering or the charming side, the Cipher is also more deadly. An Assassin (did I hit the right nail?
). Often trained from young age. Few are Master Ciphers in the world, and there's two sides of them. "Jedi versus Sith" Class, most decisions in game in terms of dialogues and choices.Chanter: A churchly title, the Chanter casts on spells by singing or yelling,
Monk: I hope a Brother Tuck type of Monk, a staff master because of ritualistic purposes and training. Or better yet, poi. A religious or non-religious man/woman, to an inner spiritual God or an outer spiritual God. Kind and appreciating to the world around them. Living in the flow. Is not necessarily part of the order whether a monastic Monk or a traveling Monk. Kind of like the underdog, the bottom of the bottom in hierarchy in terms of society. The Monk gets taxed instead of taxing. Everyone picks at the Monk.
-
I want enemies to be immune, I want bosses to be immune, I personally don't think it's boring, it's frustrating. As long as I can leave the area and access some shop or something (even if I have to go through the entire dungeon back and forth).
In IWD I had a whooping party that could defeat anything, well anything except the last boss. My party was strong, I had great gear and equipment, the only thing that was missing was 1 Hammer that I had just sold (learned later reading a guide that you're supposed to keep it, ah how should I have known?). I tried fighting the last boss 3 or 4 times before giving up, each time took about 30-40 minutes before my party died and the god damn boss was always at "Near Death" from Spells (which was the only thing capable of hurting him), the rest was "Immunity to damage". The real issue was that I couldn't leave the end-game tower and there were no shops to exchange my gear at in any way so I was practically stuck in an area and I couldn't change my "load out".
I think that most people that got to the final boss in IWD probably beat him/her so I'm probably in the minority of the minority here, still don't want to get stuck in an end-game area that I can't leave. And if I can't leave it I want to have a secret shop or items in the end-game dungeon that I can use to change my "load out" in case I'd come across a similar situation.
-
From a purely schedule- and cost-driven perspective, I don't think that adding destructable environments will make sense. The latter is more suitable for action RPGs. It would make more sense to focus on more widely-applicable elements, such as getting the spell effects and character animation looking good.
I don't know why but for some reason I believe that many people think "Oh destructible environment" and think of Diablo action RPG-esque "smashing crates" type of thing. I think I believe that because that's kind of what I think myself.. why does it have to be treated like smashing crates and toppling down walls though? What if that house actually catches fire when you throw a Fireball and the world reacts to it?
How does it not make sense? I just threw a Fireball inside a wooden barn with lots of hay and nothing started burning. Or in the forest, yeah, I unleashed my spell arsenal (fire) on those Druids because I wanted to watch them burn (evil character) but nothing happened. The spell's fizzled against the bark of the tree or something, oh well I did take down the entire Druid encampment population. Likewise, if I play a good character I might be more careful with where I place my spells, so I don't burn down the entire forest (Instead I might choose some friendlier spells in my Grimoire to cast).
A destructible/interactive environment is definitely adding immersion in whichever way you look at it, just want to argue that (whether or not it in the game or not, and to what extent). Probably will cost more resources, unless there's some time or cost effective way to do it.
Unrelated but related: I just watched a review of SimCity for SNES, fun stuff.
-
1
-
-
First, it's Physics, not Physixs.
That bothered you as well? Then I realized "Oh right!" it's PhysX by the way, to be nit-picky. It's a graphics thingmabob.
Mafia, Highest PhysX settings versus Lowest PhysX settings.
I think this topic touches destructible environment and/or interactive environment and I say yes to that. I hope that Obsidian defines Material they use in their development early on (Wood is Wood, Stone is Stone), this way they could possibly make flammable houses and/or trees
I thought I replied to this thread but oh well shrug.. thought of an alternate ending to Baldur's Gate that would've been cool thanks to this thread. Imagine being able to enter Baldur's Gate, lob a molotov coaktail* at the Thieves Guild, enter the Labyrinth but be chased down by every guard in Baldur's Gate through it (in and out) and take out Sarevok. It could be an excellent ending for an evil character, as you have to escape out of Baldur's Gate doing this, and escaping the city gets you to Jon Irenicus (ambushed in the wilds and captured). Just something to think about.
I think that a risk of throwing around Fireballs wherever you go could be an interesting feature, with an On/Off switch in difficulty options (Flammable objects "Yes/No"?).
If I am inside a wooden house and the Bandits come and attack, or the villagers are on a lynch mob with torches to destroy the main character (because they think he/she is an abomination or whatever). Regardless, they burn down the house my party is in and rising from the ashes of it is my character, though I might loose 1 or 2 characters if I can't escape from it. Likewise I could use the same tactic against my enemies hiding inside houses. The consequences would of course be that people wouldn't like you as much if you burn down their villages and huts.
It'd be a more rewarding experience for an evil character if you can play a chaotic destructive force character.
Workload:
- Making everything flammable isn't difficult (I think), using a fire animation that spreads depending on triggers and such and where it hits (I mean, Fire and Wood is both going to be "material" in the game, so this is a question of organizing the models and such to act accordingly, which is a bit of a workload). There'd be some workload to making the "destroyed" model too I think.
- The real workload I believe is to make story elements and consequences, making NPC's react in a way and such. Druids in a Forest, Villagers, Guards, Factions etc. etc.
*coaktail because the other one is, you know, filtered.
-
In Might & Magic 1 you have to go to an Inn to save. I really like this concept. If camping is limited (in essence, an updated Rest mechanic) this could be cool as well. There are some problems with this though, and that is if you camp outside the dungeon, you go through the entire thing, get to the boss and then die. Now you have to play through everything. Of course you could break the immersion yourself and finish everything in the dungeon except the boss, leave for a town and save, then return to the cave. But then the question is... has anything respawned?
And if it has respawned, wouldn't this be an excellent method to use for "grinding" and "abusing"? Regardless, I think that you should be able to save anywhere and however you want, Hardcore mode fulfills the hardcore saving does it not? The real question I am wondering about is, will I be able to play Hardcore save mode on all difficulties?
"Save scumming" (the definition of it is externally messing with the actual .file definition in your folder e.g., "making a backup" no?) has never really been an issue to me, I press Q like mad when I play Baldur's Gate. Before enemy, after enemy, before rest, after rest. I see it as a sense of accomplishment and I'm a fast player (heavy micro-management, I draw conclusions quick and beat enemies to a pulp within 3 draws, I can be a mean chess player too
). The Rest mechanic is more of an issue, which will be... fixed in P:E? I don't think it will be entirely "fixed" but with new solutions comes new problems, I'm such an optimist 
realistically speaking, there's probably going to be things in P:E that people are going to whine about regardless, you can't please everyone, and everyone certainly doesn't know how to please themselves (mindset).Also, if I get woken up by enemies I take them down, no reloading here just because I had a bad night. The real problem is that I can take down the enemies fairly easy due to party strength and player skill, then I just rest right after that battle, if there is another battle waking my party up I take those enemies down until I get a satisfactory rest and re-memorized all my spells and such. It was way too easy to rest and take down enemies, there was no real threat. The highest difficulty I've played on Baldur's Gate is "Core Rules" though so I have no idea how difficult the enemies get on the highest highest settings *shrug*
-
Threads, categorized by "Kickstarter", "Classes", "Alignment", "Player" etc. etc. it is more of a collection from A-X what has been discussed. Fairly up to date.
-
4
-
-
False statement(?): A trigger is kind of, putting a "thought" (externally) into the AI "Go that way and use animation 43 to attack".
Question: Is it possible for you to create an environment in the game during development where you can play 1on1 against each other (Enemy versus main party/classes)? Is it possible to create/record a "Live" AI based on how you actually play? This is not any flirting about multiplayer or LAN, I'm curious as to how an AI is crafted and if there are more than one way to do it.
-
I think it's a little unfair to ask very specific things like this
I think you are reading way too much into the grapple thing, I started this topic because I was hoping there was some more abilities (I couldn't think of any tbh) that could be "nerfed" in terms of animations and stuff that really takes Obsidians time, so we can get more game and less effort.
On the AI thoughts: Not only related to Grapple but generally, if I send my hulking Barbarian and my Fighter whilst shooting arrows and Magic Missiles after 1 enemy, is he just going to stand there taking that pounding or could he react as the Fighter and Barbarian enters the suggested AI AoE ring (invisible to the eye, only in code) and hightail it the other way?
-
I just want to dive into this because party building is really important (way more important than designing a "Single Player" style in my opinion). I want my party to function as a party, teamwork is super important. Doing some calculations on how many combinations could be possible and yeah... xD
I'm not a full fledged genius mathematician so I can't say that the link below shows the correct credible information, did make a list of all Classes Combined with each other (N = 11, R = 2) in Excel and came up to the same number that the Calculator did (55) so I believe it.
http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/discretemathematics/combinations.php
N = Number of Classes (11)
R = Number of Party Members (6)
426 possible 6 man party builds (based on Classes only). I would at least like to see N = 11 and R = 2 (each class combined with 1 other class; 11 classes 2 party members), the number of combinations/builds are way fewer and more realistic to design, namely 55 <- that calculation isn't taking into consideration the fact that I can have 3 party members and use the Barbarian, Fighter and Cipher mix and matched a la:
Barbarian+Fighter
Barbarian+Cipher
Cipher+Fighter
For laughs (not serious):
N = Number of Combinations/Party Builds (426)
R = Armor Tiers (3)
N+R = 12'794'200
-
^That is exactly what I'm going for. Monk (or Unarmed) specific ability, so unless you go with a 3+ Monk party the battle wouldn't be static. The Grappling/Stun Lock would definitely be a double-edged sword.
Another thought, to negate some abusing, is that when your Monk is in a Stun Lock with someone else, and you send in your Rogue or Fighter (or whatever, really) to deal damage to the enemy there's a chance you'll hit the Monk instead. This way it'll be a risk to send in a character to backstab the enemy.
Example: Monk Stun Locks the Bandit, they struggle, my Wizard throws a Magic Missile aimed at the enemy, but as the Monk and Bandit wrestles, the Missiles miss the Bandit and hits my Monk instead. Same thing with my Barbarian, I send him in to deal some massive Hulk damage but I miss and now I've beheaded Forton. It'll make the ability much more a "Should I use this?" or not.
I also think that you shouldn't be able to just leave the "Stun Lock" at a whim, you'd have to have proper Strength (or something). If the enemy is stronger, especially if the enemy is stronger, I shouldn't be able to just dance out of it as if it is nothing. If I engage a Stun Lock it should be a risk I am willing to take.
-
So I was just thinking about this, what abilities are there that can serve the same purpose without having an animation for it?
In Update 15 Tim Cain says that "grapple" won't be in the game because it is unnecessary resources. Is there a middle-ground here?
I wouldn't, personally, mind if there is a grapple ability (for the Monk) in the game. Even if it is without animation. I draw most of my thoughts from League of Legends regarding this, where you press a button when you're close enough to an enemy and there's a "clanky" sound and then "Stun" (if you are within range of your opponent). Could grapple be an ability without animation?
Sample Example 1:
I move my monk up close to the target enemy, use the "Grapple" ability and both my enemy and my monk are now "Stunned" or "Static". My own imagination fills in the blanks where the animation is lacking. Perhaps there could be a SoT (Stamina over Time) loss to both my Monk and the opponent (Dependent on Strength). The one with the highest Strength throws saving throws to be able to leave the grapple, for instance, the opponent has a higher Strength and thus can leave the grapple whenever he/she feels like it. The AI could react to distance, and amount of characters in an invisible AoE ring around it. So if I send a character to aid my Monk in this power struggle the AI could react and leave it, but if I stay away the AI continues to power struggle, because he/she is stronger than my Monk.
[EDIT]:
Sample Example 2:
My Wizard being able to throw an AoE Dome Spell, I could trap 3-4 enemies in this Dome with my Fighter, so that the enemies don't go away and focus something else, or perhaps trap them together with an angry Barbarian. Or better yet, trap them whilst I take out something else. This wouldn't need to be animated either but simple cause any enemy hit by this spell to not be able to leave the affected AoE area. Perhaps a glimmer of light around the selected area.[/EDIT]
Are there any other abilities that could be difficult or time consuming to animate that could follow a similar type of simplicity?
Ultima 1 (which I recently finished) is a very very simplified example (with hardly any abilities at all, I didn't buy any spells or try them I just wanted to finish the game as fast as possible so I could have it under my belt, i.e. I followed a walkthrough about 1/2 of the game). Are there any tl;dr folk left in the forums by the way?
TL;DR: AI thoughts, but really wondering if some animations for some abilities could be simplified. E.g., do you want to see an ability in P:E but you think it would be too resource heavy? Perhaps it could be simplified? How vivid does spell shields need to be?
-
Lol, my friend in America told me that game companies aren't allowed to make an actual lockpicking mini-game (He was a locksmith and could pick many locks) because it is easy to pick a lock and/or teach how to pick a lock through a game. Instead they create something psuedo-real for ease of use. I laughed in his conspiratorial face, silently.
On to the matter. A mini-game can be fun, but it can also be tedious. We have the Rogue, and dedicating a mini-game to only Rogue seems unfair to the other classes but it would give you a reason to have a Rogue, which is also a drawback in itself (in essence, the question of "What if I don't play a Rogue?"). With that said, no to mini-games, but perhaps there is a different way to do it?
In Lands of Lore you get an item, lockpicks, which never breaks (I'm playing on novice by the way). You click your inventory and click the chest a multitude of times til the chest opens. I could see that in P:E, except having the lockpicks break (depending on difficulty). And/Or have it as an On/Off button at character creation. I kind of want to tailor my difficulty to my playstyle (personally).
-
Hi, it would be awesome with environmental hazards and I'm simply voting for imaginations sake, I don't expect it to be a part of the game even if this poll becomes popular.
Good poll +1.
I voted as such:
"Should there be environmental hazards?"
I look at this question like that^ because it to me feels as a pressing question "Should there be" as if I am demanding "Yes!" when I vote. I choose "Maybe in special areas" which could be a part of the normal game. A Swamp that has a poisonous mist that I can't get through without an experimental (for it's era) gas mask item/helmet. I could possibly go through it without the item in question, but I would be taking damage over time (DoT) as long as I stay in the area.
"Should there be hazardous weather?"
Maybe once or twice.
"If you voted yes..."
It is meant to be endured and overcome, from a roleplaying perspective. Items could make my journey simpler through it. If I don't have a cape when traveling through the stormy desert I'll get a penalty to "sight", whilst I get less of a penalty with a cape. A fur cape when I travel through the mountains will keep my party warmer but I'd still take a slight penalty to "movement speed". If anything like this is ever implemented (Hazardous weather) make sure that an item or an equipment or magical spell doesn't entirely remove all of the effects of the weather, but simply mitigates some of it's effects.
Old school classic adventure games that only let's you travel through certain areas if you have certain items, and it's all fun and games and when you get the item and can tread further into the game. Most of the games just "remove" the effects completely when you have that equipment/item. Walking with Mud Boots in the Swamp should allow me to walk through it, but it shouldn't necessarily make me be able to sprint across it. I should still be getting a movement speed penalty, the Swamp Serpents will still move faster than me and it'd be difficult to run away. Adding tactical aspects to the areas would be awesome
-
Recently tried some old old old school games (Finished Ultima 1, with a walkthrough to a start, just to understand basics. Am at the White Tower in Lands of Lore and it's a b**ch. 2nd town in M&M1). New found love for these classics, one of the reasons being I hardly know anything and have to cover a lot by Pen & Paper side by side. Drawing all the maps, writing and figuring out spells by myself and so on. Writing down Quests and Hints etc.
I love it! Though, I encounter some instances where I find it difficult to play. Ultima 2, I'm on my 4th character because it's quite different from 1st one and I haven't devoted myself to it either. Darklands seem amazing but I'm on the first page of the manual (have barely read anything). I would be fine with some basic information, "tooltips" if you will. But I would also want to flesh out the Spell descriptions (specifically) myself. I'd want to know the effects when I cast a spell, and not know before (forcing me to learn by "trial and error"). I'd also want to have it as an option, turn on/off.
-
Hi Steve
looking forward to challenge your AI.I too am a whiskey enthusiast, though not heavily or heaving but sophisticated. Unless it's a bottle of R&R.
Cheers (and a suggestion if you like the darker, steamy, musty, smokey stuff):
This one will put some hair on your chest.
-
1
-
-
One of the issues with this thread is "Why does the rogue get a bonus to attacking from the back when a fighter doesn't?".
Why does an X gain an ability when a Y does not? We're using a class-based system in part because every IE game also used class-based systems. One of the things that class-based systems do to differentiate classes is give them exclusive capabilities. It just so happens that prior to 3E (including most 2nd Ed. thief kits), thieves were generally terrible in combat. Source: playing and DMing literally dozens of thieves in 1st and 2nd Ed. AD&D. The one thing in their favor once combat started (or before combat started) was backstab. It was unreliable, but it's been kept in one form or another over the years. It seems like an obvious thing for them to retain.
We're not going to make rogues pure utility characters and we've stated this from the start. For us, the question is not, "Should rogues be able to hold their own in combat?" For us, the question is, "What are the different ways in which rogues should be able to hold their own in combat?" There are many potential answers to that question, but if ideas get shot down because fighters have to consistently smash everyone else to pieces in melee without exception, it's going to be difficult to answer.
This right here makes me wonder if the Fighter could be weaker... if the Role of the Fighter is to not be a meat grinder perhaps the Role of the Rogue becomes more interesting? Still, I don't see why everyone should not have backstab (why should it be excluded?). Likewise I don't see the reason to not include a Sneak Attack ability for the Rogue.
If everyone has backstab in your party, then everyone you are facing should have it as well (in my opinion this is interesting, and fights will be a lot of positioning, could spawn some weird AI though = Enemies that position themselves behind you and dies when they would've dealt more damage head on).
Sneak Attack, however, could work in 360 angles (at the cost of Stamina) for the Rogue. It would be more likely to miss if used head on face-to-face, but you could still do it. It could be seen as the Rogue slipping his dagger between the arms of the enemy and adeptly strike the abdomen or a weak spot. Armpit? etc. etc. Now I don't suggest you should wrestle with a sword in hand but for example's sake, Sword against Dagger, the Sword will be a clumsy weapon and clumsy to use, it'd be better to just drop it and fight unarmed, but a dagger up close and personal (close enough for a wrestle) you can still use flexibly without any restriction.
If you are in a fist-fight (real life), quickly move as close as possible (in a hugging position, you want body to touch body almost) because this makes your opponent loose range. It's hard to hit someone who is hugging you for several reasons, but if the intent is to do damage you suddenly don't have the same range to use your sword, or your fist. Imagine someone right now, up close and personal with their face right next to yours in front of you, or go stand in front of a wall. How hard can you hit the wall if you stand right in front of it, comparing to taking 1 step back away from it?
Sneak Hug. There we go. The Role of the Rogue.
-
I voted yes, I would tolerate it. I'd prefer if it isn't "toy head" on human body. But a bipedal relative, more sophisticated version of the animal. Kind of Humans versus the primitive equivalent, Monkeys. Elephans would also be more sophisticated but keep some of its primitive Elephant anatomy.
Do I think it's arrogant that we place ourselves into the world? Yes and no. It makes sense on many levels, but it could be done differently, must humanity be the governing force in every game?
-
1
-
-
^Yes but not at all or even close to a Job system (Axe = Barbarian, even if I chose Fighter, not like that).
The Job System and the Class System are two-different ones (One of them you can switch around as you see fit, the other one will be part of your character throughout the entire game). It is similar, but the weapon wouldn't define your class (mechanically) like it does in FFXIV. It would merely be a tool.
A Fighter won't become a Wizard just because he picks up the Grimoire, he'll still be a Fighter (In FFXIV he would become a Wizard).
-
See attachment. I don't think it's entirely complete. Worked on it earlier today, didn't think I'd use it but then you go and ask if I can come up with 9 abilities when I've already come up with some 33~
-
1
-
-
-
-
Made an even better list, categorized everything. Seriously think this should help anyone.
This is only Part 1: A-L
Starts with ALIGNMENT
). Often trained from young age. Few are Master Ciphers in the world, and there's two sides of them. "Jedi versus Sith" Class, most decisions in game in terms of dialogues and choices.
). The Rest mechanic is more of an issue, which will be... fixed in P:E? I don't think it will be entirely "fixed" but with new solutions comes new problems, I'm such an optimist 
realistically speaking, there's probably going to be things in P:E that people are going to whine about regardless, you can't please everyone, and everyone certainly doesn't know how to please themselves (mindset).
Classes and Party Build
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted · Edited by Osvir
@Jojobobo: The game has the party based mechanic in mind, it isn't intended to be a single character game. Bioware said that it would be possible to solo the DA:O on easy, but that it would be impossible on harder difficulties and that you'd need a party. Heck even on easy it could be difficult to solo in DA:O. I don't expect much but I kind of expect to see something similarly. However, as I've discussed my "Armor as an Upgradeable Asset similar to a Skill Tree" in other threads I'm thinking that a solo gameplay (with those Armor mechanics in mind, check the "Wall of Text" in my signature) you could give the Paladin several different roles on a single player playthrough (and gain more experience to be able to give that Paladin more than 1 role by him/herself). Giving the Solo Playthrough the ability to play a Paladin/Fighter in one situation, and a Paladin/Wizard in a different situation.
I'm looking objectively at the different classes as professions and how to place the classes into the world as definitions beyond what weapons they use, what does a Paladin do for a living? Why is he a Paladin and how come? Why is someone calling that guy a Paladin? Why would someone call my Fighter a Fighter and not a Samurai?
Taking Paladin as an example I do believe that it is originally something that's inspired by the crusaders (in essence; not a nice guy, but blinded by devotion. I think that's what the wikia says as well).
A little bit of a repeat and trying to draw better connections.
Paladin:
Likewise I can see the Paladin (who is not part of a Holy Order) calling himself a White Knight, or even a Dark Knight. Paladin could be a collective "name" for several different archetypes and doesn't necessarily have to be a Soldier in some sort of Organization or Religious thing. Mechanically someone could be a Paladin, but roleplayingly the guy could be related to being a Royal Knight as well (without any religious devotion to it) or even a simple farmer who believes in the Light of the World and fights for it. The title "Knight" in many games past has had this role.
Fighter:
A Fighter could be anyone, an apprentice in the Paladin Order but dropped out before and became a Soldier, a Footman. The Fighter is related to the Hero Archetype for many reasons, most profoundly for being the Main Character in most non-class based games. Many classic games for the SNES and other similar RPG's and games generally have the "Fighter" up front as your character. I think I've seen 1 RPG where the Fighter class was actually named "Hero" but I can't remember where, it was slightly tweaked accordingly. As I said before, the Fighter sounds like a profession, like a job a la "Fight in this boxing ring to earn some money"-dude. This, in my opinion, sounds like the most difficult to define. "What an amazing fighter...!" *gulp* comparatively to "Oh he's such a rogue". You can't really use "Fighter" in the same way and it is a broad title with more meanings to it. A Barbarian could be a great Fighter, a Rogue, Cipher, Ranger and so on. Fighter relates to "Fighting" and the only thing I can think of per definition is a bully. Someone who likes to fight just to fight, which is why "Hero" might be a better class title. To be honest I'd prefer if "Fighter" was changed to something more defineable in the world, something that the Fighter actually could be called out on. "Soldier" does work. I mean, if my "Fighter" saves an entire village, whether he is a Soldier or not (coming from a farmland or something, grown up with butchering the livestock and such) I wouldn't be surprised if the villagers said something like "You're such a soldier! Such a champ!" or military men "Do you have any prior knowledge to the military, soldier?". Champion might be a better title than "Fighter" as well. I'm not suggesting that it should be changed, just that I think it'd be more interesting if changed.
Ranger:
A Ranger is pretty far away from being simply an "Archer", a Ranger is a farmer and a woodsman. Probably herding some cows (A Cowboy is a Ranger). Ever heard the term "Lone Ranger"? <- Cowboy. Red Dead Redemption. Before I wouldn't have been bothered about the implementation of the Ranger and I would have honestly said "Oh the Ranger is a Master Bowman and shoots arrows of great power to destroy everything and everyone wooozaa!" but then again I've grown up and I'm more interested in the tidbits of authenticity to the world.
Wizard:
A Wizard more of a scientist and scholar. Knowledge is Power. I'm thinking about the Librarian type from Warhammer, for some reason it feels as if the Librarian is some sort of "Archivist" (I only know of the one from the PC game Dawn of War and not the actual boardgame-thing or any lore). The Wizard is an Architect of the Soul. Physicians of the world, these are the people that come up with conceptual ideas for the future and also guards the present. Every Wizard has an interest for the Dark Side/The very deep depths of Necromancy, life and death. Some go further than others because they can't resist, others have a stronger Soul capable of resisting the temptations. Even Yoda can't avoid the Dark Side's call, but he resists it unlike anyone can or has the mindset for. The Grimoire (reading on the wiki) is both in real life and in P:E a big tome that is heavy to carry, and the Wizard seems to only be able to carry 1 (at most 2) or something like that, I'm loving it (<- that's Obsidian adding realism in a good way *standing ovation and bow*).
Cipher:
Why I deem the Cipher as an Assassin is because the Cipher has all abilities that would be best for interrogation, torture, charms, a Cipher is like a Ghost in StarCraft II (actually, the Ghosts are Psionics now that I think about it). This is why I think the Assassin role fits the Cipher more than a Rogue, whilst the Thief role fits more for the Rogue. A Cipher could specialize in combat, with few mind altering abilities, or specialize in ranged mind manipulating abilities and act more akin to a Wizard. Sasuke from Naruto -don't judge- could be seen as a Cipher as well, where he can read the movements of his opponent. I think that Cipher's should be a rare thing in the world, and mostly trained specialized agents or soldiers. Kind of like X-Men in a sense, where it is a strong power that spawns in few rare (some religious folk might even say "chosen") folk. What I meant to say that the Cipher does everything faster and better than the Rogue I didn't mean everything, but with the power to read minds they would be able to get through situations by merely reading thoughts, whilst the Rogue reads physical movements. Senator Palpatine is a Cipher, Darth Sidious (sp) is a Wizard. For some reason I feel as if the Ciphers even could be the "Unclean" and part of the "Necromancy" that the "Holy Order" fights to destroy *shrug*
Rogue:
The Rogue is not a master assassin per say. A Jack of All Trades type character, the "Adventurer". He travels a lot and tries different things, he's good at climbing, good at skydiving, drives a car well, is nimble and flexible, rash and unpredictable, got a good eye for precision and detail, he's 007, whilst the Cipher is the evil 006 (that's Golden Eye villain right? Or is it 005?). McGyver and Sherlock Holmes, a thinker and a physical solutionist~ resourceful and thievish. Often dashing and handsome in some way or another, but can also be the scums of the slums, dirty and unclean, slithering tongues and snakelike behavior.
Druid:
I see the Druid like a Voodoo Doctor, there is often not more than 1 of them per tribe. Druids love nature and hates authority, so I have a difficult time seeing Druids huddling up together and taking orders from each other, psychologically speaking I can see them pushing other people around however, as if they have a desire to tell people how live and what not to do, like any teacher they can be bad and good. Jaheira is an excellent example in my opinion, sometimes she is a great teacher of the land and the world, but sometimes she is just arrogant and stuck up. Likewise I get this vibe from her that she doesn't handle authority well, and that outright wishes to be authority (She wants to lead the group, as if it is her desire and purpose and dislikes being led by the main character). Druids would respect each other, as they follow the same path of nurturing for the land and the earth, but I have a hard time seeing it being an organized thing where there's some sort of Druid Landsmeet and they have someone or some authority deciding who cares for what type of area and so on. Druids are lazy society escapees, they live off grid in their self-sustained Earthships and people in the grid (i.e., in the "Matrix") look at Druids like they were "hippies", tree-huggers and vegan arrogant fools. It's all about perspective, and it's all about what the "Matrix" puts into the folk in the system. Town Criers are going to be P:E's form of "media" and tool for influencing the general public no? How does the Big Cities control their populations~ keep them pacified?
Barbarian:
Bandits would be Barbarians, vikings as well. Plunderers and organized villages, kind of like a Thieves Guild but out in the wilds, surviving off of caravans passing by. Pirates and looters. Not necessarily a hulking fat archetype, a Rogue could be a Barbarian for example. Vulgar in their manner. A Barbarian Chanter would be a vulgar and funny singer (skald). I think this is also a difficult "class" to define. A barbarian being an outcast, but unlike Druids they huddle up together. How many Barbarians did it take too change the light bulb? Not very intelligent either tbh.
I hope that Classes are more interesting than simply different combat roles, but that they are titles given to people as well. I see classes as a "Way of Life" rather than "Weapon Training". When I'm writing this Wall of Text it is with mindset of creating insightful material that Obsidian can use for their perusal if they feel like it.
TL;DR: Can't summarize it, sorry, but talking about implementing the classes into the world rather than implementing them into combat only. Not all classes this time though. Priest, Monk and Chanter excluded.