Ninjamestari

False, your claim isn't as good as mine, your claim isn't even good, while mine is a clearly observable fact. Also I've never even played PF, I have no stakes on that game what-so-ever, and that has nothing to do with anything. I often give people multiple threads to follow, the smart thread for people genuinely interested in the subject matter and the stupid thread for people who aren't. It's useful in determining the kind of person I'm dealing with. I'll let you guess which thread you followed. Builds do not exist in a vacuum, but being able to play succesfully isn't a validation of quality. You can drive a Lada from point a to point b, doesn't make it into any less ****ty car. Another false statement and another false argument. Being better can be determined with math, and Paladins and Chanters are objectively worse than fighters. Whether you like to have them in that role more bears no consequence on this discussion, we're not interested in personal preference here Aloth doesn't do good damage, his build doesn't exist in a vacuum and any character properly built for damage can outperform him. If Aloth is your top damage, then by definition the damage of your other characters is even less, and thus your other damage characters are even worse. This is so basic logic that if you are unable to follow it then no one can help you. Yes, you can use Aloth as a main damage dealer and beat the game. No, that doesn't make Aloth a good damage dealer. This whole "my subjective experience is as valid as yours" is not a valid argument, it's just trying to pretend that the value of things cannot be determined, usually out of the fear that oneself might be found lacking in value. People who actually think things through and understand what they're talking about do not fall back on this, and they will not respect that position because they know it to be false. One person's ignorance is not worth as much as another person's knowledge, not even close, and hiding behind that mentality will never get you anywhere.

The game being ridiculously easy and the stats having ridiculously low overall impact do not make Pallegina into a good tank. Eder will out tank her 100% of the time. You can solo the entire game on PotD with any class, so being able to do something isn't a valid argument.

A bold statement, I challenge you to go through that 'actual scrutiny'. The basic math is there, and Aloth is not a good dps character in comparison to what can be achieved, so if he's the best in your group, and he's not very good, then by definition the rest of your group must be even worse. If you can logically break that *without* succumbing to arguing through sentiment, like the people defending the system usually do, then I'd be amazed. Objectively speaking the system of PoE restricts you to roles like "dps", "tank", "support" and "healer", and those roles determine your optimal stats. And since 4 roles are less than the 11 base classes and different multi-class variations D&D has, so *objectively* speaking PoE offers you *less* freedom in the way you can build your character than 3rd edition D&D. Most of the so-called choice in PoE is completely superficial, unlike D&D where those choices have a strong impact. This leads to the logical conclusion that PoE *is* the more shallow system, and D&D *has* more depth than PoE. It's funny, and somewhat depressing, to see the mental gymnastics people go through in order to rationalize their defense of the PoE system. The reality is that they do not have any real standing arguments beside sentiment. This is a side effect of fanboyism, if you believe you may have contracted this dreadful disease somewhere, I recommend you seek medical attention immediately. It can truly have major negative consequences on your life.

100% this. PoE traded away the class-specific min-max distribution in favor of a role specific min-max distribution, which is an even worse thing. Objectively speaking, the PoE stat system doesn't achieve a single goal it set out to achieve. It's just another min-max system, but feels more like an MMO than an RPG. You know, you're a tank, max out CON and RES and PER, kinda the same as with WoW, max out your STA and DEF and get to the HIT cap. This also causes a major disconnection between the stats and intuitive reality, which weakens immersion. The new stat system is the BIGGEST problem this game has. And if Aloth manages to be the best dps in your group, then your group dps simply sucks. That's not you succeeding in "playing Aloth right", it's you completely failing to build your other characters.

Actually my dumbass wizard probably never studied a single book; he's a steroid-pumped gym-monster through and though, and is probably too stupid to even tell different letters apart, let alone read or write.

Definitely! So in essence you're not using it as a tank, but rather a bait, and have created a party that doesn't even require a tank. Definitely an interesting approach, and one that can't really be easily compared with a tank based setup. Damn, now I actually want to try that out. Have you tried/considered this approach with other classes besides chanters? How intensive is the micro-management required as opposed to having a strong front-line? Thanks Oh, there is one slight error in your assessment of fighter tanks that I have to correct: if you take the talent that adds knockdown to your disengagement attacks, even a low damage fighter is definitely not dead weight in most situations. Mostly you want to have on-hit properties on such a fighter rather than damage.

I don't like the god-like, and stat-wise their bonuses are way too weak to justify not having a helmet. I do like Pallegina though, she's the most interesting companion in the whole game, even if that is mostly a result of the other companions being kinda lame.

HE proved his worth because you were relying on him, but I suspect you might still have been better of by having a fighter instead. And dps is not the thing you're looking for in a character that is essentially supposed to tank, HP/DR/Deflection are far more important. The problem with summon-based tanking is that you can't summon anything right away. In essence, having a chanter tank sounds like a fun experiment, but not really a good choice otherwise. Every single class can act as a front liner if built properly, but none of them do it as well as a fighter. EDIT: the question is: did the Chanter's other abilities really compensate for the lower HP and deflection? EDIT EDIT: and in the absence of definite proof, give us your best estimate and reasoning based on your experience and comparing the situation to having a fighter as the frontliner. EDIT EDIT EDIT: We already know that summons and chants are powerful, what we're trying to determine is how well they fit into a character that acts as the front-liner. EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT: Oh, and I love details ^^ **** that's a lot of edits xD

The thousand dollar question is: did it have actual advantages over just having a fighter tank?

This here I agree with 100%. I think I even spoke about Obsidian's indecisiveness causing many of the problems in Pillars, not just the mages, in another thread. As far as the system you're proposing, I think you might better get to what you want by starting out with a simple system and building around it, instead of starting at the complex level and then trying to get all work together seamlessly. I like the idea of different classes having different systems governing the way their abilities work, but instead of arbitrarily deciding things like "fighters use cooldowns and paladins have per-encounter", one should start from the very basics of the class fantasy: how does a paladin gain their powers? How does a paladin use their powers? Do they call upon an energy source, or are their abilities simply a manifestation of their convictions? If the former, how does that energy source function, if the latter, is their conviction a constant upon the battlefield or do they struggle with it etc etc. If you work through that kind of a process you can achieve a system for every class that is both unique *and* ties well into the game lore. A fighter for example could make use of a concept of 'momentum'; they use certain types of attacks to build up their momentum, which will allow them to keep on pounding the enemy with powerful swings, while other maneuvers might have other effects at the cost of sacrificing ones momentum. In essence you'd have fighting moves that build up momentum, moves that maintain momentum while taking advantage of it (damage or something else scales with the momentum you've built up), other moves could require you to sacrifice that momentum while others could utilize it. A disengagement maneuver that gives you temporary breathing room would obviously sacrifice your momentum, as would a massive strike where you use all your momentum for a single reckless all-in attack you're not even attempting to swing around in order to carry on swinging. Then there could be other forms of 'spell-casting'. For example there could be a class that instead of mana would use powerful sigils to invoke magic. Every 'spell' they would cast would require the activation of one or more sigils, these sigils could be etched onto their skin, they could be inscribed into a piece of equipment or something like that. Every time a sigil is activated, it gets drained of its power and will require a cooldown period to recharge; they could either recharge simultaneously or one at a time. Tying this to the mana system could give plenty of interesting abilities; for example these sigil casters could have a 'release mana' ability of some sort they could use to grant mana to a mana-based spellcaster. Another aspect of this would be that this different manner of 'spellcasting' would also render the sigil using fellow immune to mana burns and drains, unless he multiclasses into a mana-using class ofc. Coming up with these sorts of different systems and then mixing and matching can be incredibly fun. And as far as balancing such a vast amount of variety, you'll simply have to have the same amount of variety in your combat encounters and other situations the characters can find themselves in. Drop in a few anti-magic fields and you'll suddenly appreciate that warrior a whole lot more than you did just a few moments ago, have a spell immune monster or two to tackle. You might even have some drawn out dungeons where you're just trapped; you might allow the player a single rest at the beginning, for example you're in a sealed portion of an underground temple, and while you can get out, no one can get in, and after you go out, you can't get back into that safe zone either and will just have to do with what you have. If every situation the game puts you through is essentially just a variation of the same situation over and over and over again, then the game becomes a cookie-cutter game, and then the most powerful build will be the cookie-cutter build. This is what caused all the problems in World of Warcraft for example; they got rid of the old talent system because they didn't want to force players into these cookie cutter builds, but the problem was never the system, the problem was that the players never had to face any challenges besides cutting cookies. If all your role consists of is doing damage to a single target in a boss encounter, then all that is going to matter is the amount of damage you do and that +1% damage will always be better than that neat utility skill. Variety quite easily balances itself out if you have enough of it. But in essence, you don't want complexity for it's own sake, complexity just is a natural result of the vast amount of variety and epth you aim for, and I fully agree with you that this is the way to make the good stuff, but it is still easier to build such a system by first making a simple but flexible core you can then build around, and you are right that even this kind of system can be balanced around the numbers with proper conversion tables as you can track things like how much initial bursting punch a class has, how much staying power they have etc etc. This data can then be used to create a multitude of various encounters and scenarios to make sure that every single class gets their opportunities to shine.

A minor distinction, but admittedly an important one. I'm glad you emphasize the importance of the context of the overall goal because it really can't be emphasized enough. A coherent goal is what is used to define 'good' and 'bad'; without a coherent goal those words have no context and no meaning. So in essence, the "best" solution is the simplest solution that achieves all the goals it is set to achieve (stuff like flexibility, scalability, style etc.) If the goal is to make a vancian system, then doing a non-vancian system really isn't an option, but if the system is still undecided, there are objective factors that can be considered to see what kind of system best achieves the other goals that have been specified. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the better you understand your goals, the better you can define the merits and flaws of individual design options, and a simple code that does the exact same thing as a complicated code is just a superior code. Simpler is better as long as it does everything it needs to do.

I think the mistake here was making the whole class in the first place. A single player computer game doesn't benefit that much from having a vast and versatile class system. Bioware realized this in Dragon Age: Origins, and the epitome of narrative driven RPGs, ME2. Having too many different options simply means you cannot tailor the story properly for anyone, which greatly diminishes player engagement. You know, despite its flaws, Tyranny was very easy to get into with your character having a clearly defined role and the classless system making sure that your personal vision of your character's identity didn't really matter from the storytelling standpoint. The classless system was an awesome idea, and the only thing holding it back was the god-awful implementation. Some times less is more. The amount of player identities you allow can easily be seen as ground you have to cover when making a map. You can make a large huge mega-map, but then you'll be overwhelmed with the task of making sure it doesn't feel empty. With a smaller map you can achieve a much more powerful experience due to being able to fill it with content and stuff to do. The same goes with having multiple classes. I mean seriously, there really is no valid game-play reason to have anything except for the basic fighter, mage and a rogue. And maybe a priest. Having weird classes like monks, druids, ciphers and such adds no value to the game beyond the sentimental reasons of some people simply wanting them everywhere, even in game worlds where they ultimately feel out of place. This is just another reason why you can't really run a game-company like a democracy; too many competing visions and interests will rob the end product of a proper identity, which is kinda what is holding PoE back. Don't get me wrong, I like playing around with a versatile class system, coming up with builds, but in the long run it only detracts from the game, and the people who really want these things don't really enjoy playing these games as much in the first place, but rather tend to fool around with the system in their heads. Nothing wrong with that, but that is difficult to translate into a meaningful gaming experience, and especially difficult to translate into sales. Why I bring up sales is that I have a dream of financially independent game developers who have the freedom to chase their own visions instead of being saddled into either brainless masses or soulless corporations. The more obsidian makes money, the less reliant they are of outside funding, which means they don't have to tie their hands by catering to crowd-funding-bull**** like arbitrary stretch-goals. Just imagine PoE without the backer NPCs and you'll understand how fundamentally better the game would be if Obsidian could've just focused doing their own thing instead of pandering to the source of their funding.

Stop pushing for Joshugina. That's the stuff of nightmares, and I already have trouble sleeping.

Hah, if I didn't know that I'm never going to play BG2 again, I might give that mod a try. Imoen was the only character I *wanted* to explore romantic options with in the entire series. All the other characters were like "oh, and which romance arc should I pick...", while Imoen was actually a character I felt genuine affection for.

Or they could just be more subtle. You know, a Death Godlike having blank eyes instead of no face at all, and fire Godlike could have a slightly more red tone in their skin instead of being on freaking fire all the time. And moon godlikes could simply emit a *faint* glow instead of looking like friggin space-aliens, or something like that.

I'd like to see a beastmaster subclass.

It's not quite that clear cut; Bioware has superior storytelling in the technical sense; pacing, plot, overall design in mood changes, Bioware does all of those things better than Obsidian. A lot better. Obsidian's strength is in their own unique style, their stories connect with both the world and the player in a much deeper way than Bioware has ever managed to do. Bioware has created a formula and perfected their skills in utilizing it to the point when they can just engineer engaging stories. What they've lost in the process is the soul and the artistic vision though, while Obsidian still has those in spades. There's a lot for Obsidian to learn, but the difference is that while Obsidian can learn the raw proficiency Bioware has, the artistic integrity and vision Obsidian has is something that can't just be duplicated. To simplify, Bioware is the superior craftsman, but Obsidian has access to better raw materials.

I find the godlikes generally uninteresting. They really give off the childish "let's make it even more awesomer" - feeling that makes it harder to take the game world seriously. There's nothing inherently wrong with the concept, but their appearance is so over the top that you can't seriously expect people to react normally to a character that essentially looks like a freaking monster from hell. Such an extreme appearance should cause rather extreme reactions, and since scripting around that is kinda way too much work for the very limited amount of value the race brings to the game, they shouldn't have been introduced in the first place. Not like this anyway; if they had a more subtle appearance, different enough that it's obvious they're not ordinary people, but not enough to make them look like some freakish demons from some hell dimension, then the concept would work and might actually be interesting instead of just something that increases the cringe factor of the game.

I doubt that budget is the limiting factor here. Talented writers are a rare resource, and the amount of work they can produce in a given time frame is finite. That's why I think the priority should still be the actual story. I'd rather want to see more class-specific content than blow the already bloated disposition system completely out of proportions.

It's not *hard* to balance those things. There are variables you can track, like the ones you mentioned, that can be used to make sure that a wizard isn't just all other classes put together + more powerful. For example, if you have "lockpicking" as a separate skill, then you don't have to make a spell that simply opens locks, you can have a spell that lets you attempt lockpicking without having an actual lockpick, which can work fine in a game where lockpicks are a limited resource. To be honest, the things you are worried about are not caused by magic systems and wizards, but are actually just a side effect of rigid class-based systems. For example, what's the point of having a rogue if you can just bash open all the doors and containers? I understand that magic makes you uneasy and you're afraid of wizards too easily becoming too powerful, but your fears are misplaced, as that same risk applies to every single class. Magic and Wizards aren't 'special' in this regard.

I never really liked the playing style of chanters, having to spend the vast majority of any fight simply shooting that boomstick of yours and scratching your junk, then getting to cast that single invocation right before the final monster kicks it. This is by far in my mind the issue that should get the most attention when it comes to Chanters. The Dexterity proposal might work to counter this a little bit, but since it would also allow a chanter to gain those chant-points (or what ever) they use for invocations that much faster, which would lead into Dexterity suddenly becoming the most important stat for the class. Especially if it increases the linger portion of the chants (2 sec chant + 2 sec linger turning into 1 sec chant + 3 sec linger instead of 1 sec chant + 2 sec linger). I think the latter option would be better, as intelligence already increases linger duration. The point is that while dexterity shouldn't as viable a dump stat as it is, it shouldn't be the king-stat you always maximize either.

PoE is only a step away from that though, what with not having any sort of utility spells what so ever. One of the biggest flaws in PoE, if not the biggest, is its overly exclusive focus on combat.

I think the weapon models aren't as much a problem as the different visual effects that come from enchantments. I think that the weapon models themselves are exactly spot on in PoE.

...not to mention that a good game has to offer contrast, and those early BG quests are well tied within the fantasy and the identity of your character at that point. They're the kind of eloquent solution I like; simple stuff that accomplishes oh so many things. And of course, one has to introduce the basic ideas first before moving on to more elaborate content. If the very first quest you get is overwhelmingly complicated, the chances of a player even getting started with the game drop quite significantly. EDIT: in other words, exactly what you said.

Someone should make a song about that one! :D Exactly, getting married to your character's equipment isn't something I'd consider overly healthy ^^ Just about everything; getting those extra starting levels always felt nice since I could start throwing off cool abilities earlier, and ME2 is the type of game you want to experiment with in terms of story, so you'll want to get that renegade save from ME1 to store your renegade decisions for your renegade ME2 Shepard. Not to mention the importance I personally place on continuity in such a game, which effectively renders me unable to just reroll my Shepard's class and appearance and still fully enjoy the game. Editing the save-game files on the other hand makes me feel dirty and would nag on me every time I look at the character, again rendering me incapable of getting immersed into the experience.