[Some questions about undeath in PoE]

Gromnir your making a good point. Basically Ghouls in Pillars won't be anything like standard ghouls from D&D(or previous Infinity engine games). Ghouls(in fact most undead) in fantasy and folklore create more ghouls/undead whenever they kill a victim - which means one undead could lead to a monster epidemic. Potentially filling an entire dungeon area with monsters or creating a zombie plague.

 

On the reverse if creating undead is more of a forbidden ritual - more akin to creating a Frankenstein. Lone (insane/mentally ill?)individual breaks societies morals to create abomination A created undead, which cannot transfer their undead curse would be much rarer. I can kind of see where he's coming from. If undead are difficult and costly to create- a dungeon area filled with undead would be ludicrous. Stretching the imagination to the utmost, maybe a rare indigenous tribe(maybe a religious cult or sect?) at one point bound all it's people to undeath - which could fill a dungeon/adventure area? Even those adventure threads a bit out there, since Animancers are a new in the Pillars game world. How long would it take a person to turn into a rotting ghoul - days,weeks,months?

 

The only really cool idea, that I might use in a fantasy setting with Pillar's undead tropes - Would be a king/leader allowing undead to be created in mass to ensure it's military victory. For a mentally ill/insane dictator turning it's dead into cannon fodder and launching them at their enemies seems quite plausible. One of the only ways I can see of making an array of undead in vast enough numbers to ensure undead as a common monster enemy. Heck alternately if an evil ruler created undead from his enemy - let them go feral and then proceeded to launch them via catapults at said enemy - could lead to enemy losing morale. In this instance some might survive the landing, attack their fellows. Others would be broken, but all would still be moving making noises - ontop of having recognizable faces - damn good strategy for an evil villain.

[Paul Kirsch will write the Collectors Book for Eternity]

Aren't they releasing information on other forums and news sites to generate interest in the game? Everyone on this site is a lock, by that we all bought the game for the most part. Obsidian doesn't have a big budget to spend millions on advertising, and releasing insider info to these forums and sites is a cheap(free) way to get the PoE the spotlight. Don't take it as a personal insult, think about why it might happen. Free publicity is a good reason, I want Obsidian to succeed - the more games they make with total creative control the better. (At least in theory, hopefully it'll become substantiated fact after the release of PoE.

 

Besides, does this forum even need all information first? It seems some of the members have a google search of Pillars going on 24/7. If even a whisper of this game occurs elsewhere it finds it's way here. Just my 2cents ;p Cheers guys

[Tomes are lame]

Likely different arch-types/kits of Wizards without needing a Grimoire will appear in the expansion or sequels if it's profitable. Similar to Baldur's Gate to Baldur's Gate 2. From a game balance perspective, I really think the tome is evidence that Josh took a hard look at the weakness of Pathfinder/D&D type rpg systems where wizards have the most versatility. (Limiting spells grimoire's contain, time delay switching them in battle) Really Obsidian has employee's with experience creating games using a venetian ruleset for years. Basically it means you won't have to equip the wizard with a dagger or sling(like in BG/IWD). Likely will have a basic acid arrow or something in there as a base at will spammable attack, the rest are their daily/encounter powers.

 

Really look at this in a different way, would it make sense for a Wizard to basic attack with a sling? Or have a grimoire with a inscribed spell formula they solve ad hoc with their focus and fire at an enemy. The use of implements was one of the cooler additions of 4E D&D, really I agree not all wizards should need them but this is a first iteration of their game engine+ruleset.

[How do you think it would impact people to know, with dead certainty, they will reincarnate?]

Miracles happen in this world all the time. People are just too blind to see them. There are plenty of phenomena that don't have explanations in this world that are considered thus.

 

I already know what I'm goign to role-play as my first character: a skeptic. He doesn't believe in magic - it just natural phenomena that hasn't had its mechanisms explained yet. He doesn't believe in the gods - they are just people who have tricked others into believing that they're divine, when in reality, they just have a better control and understanding of these natural phenomena - they are charlatans and liars. As for souls? Yeah, he believes souls exist. But that doesn't change anything really.

 

When I said "active" gods, I meant more on the level of Greek Myth. (If forced to give a real world example) Take for instance Hera turning a woman(Arachne) who dared to challenge her skill in weaving, into an aberration half-woman/Spider hybrid. Being a DM for years has me using the term miracle or epoch for pretty much anything a god entity might do benign or not. Frankly if a god throws around wish granting power faith is pretty much moot. Since you don't have to have any to believe in a god cursing it's enemies or curing the illnesses of it's worshipers. It's as real as your neighbor across the street.

 

In Faerun(Abeir-Toril) the setting of Neverwinter Nights 2, shows why some people might become skeptics in that game setting. Basically Kelemvor is an ascended human who obtained godhood. Meaning in setting any creature could technically get a divine rank (spark of divinity). At the same time the gods are portrayed as petty and cruel due to gaining said energy from their worshipers - and if a being refuses to give that energy they go to the wall. This leads to a moral quandary of the setting - how can the good gods be good if they condemn those innocent of wrong doing to a fate worse then hell.

 

Truly speculations on the divine order in fiction is interesting to me. It also makes the stuff of great epic level adventures. I'm excited to see what obsidian pulls out of it's hat in that regards. Since they've done some of the more interesting/mature takes constructing and deconstructing of settings to date.

[How do you think it would impact people to know, with dead certainty, they will reincarnate?]

I really think the soul in Pillars would be considered a lot differently then real world religions. This is mostly due to the fantastical fact having a master pedigree of previous incarnations would lead to an extremely powerful soul magics. I think an interesting take might be how societies view soul splintering - how can it be known someone was previously person x. Is it that soul magics can determine previous incarnations, which would that lead to different classes(Highborn - lowborn)?

 

Could soul reincarnations lead to war? By that what if person Y is reincarnation of king of country X. Could taking over country X be just reassuming your duties from your past life? From my perspective if religion is interpreted as in reality - as in a fantastical fiction; it likely won't be as interesting. Sure real life Buddhist philosophies and other religions have interesting considerations - but at the same time having fantastic elements like magic >demons > undead and other monsters present there is a lot of potential for intriguing plots.

 

IF a race is like the Minbari in Babylon 5, that their souls appear in another race how would that effect them? What if on another extreme a race like the Drow or some other "evil" race's soul appear how are they dealt with. Can a supernatural monster through possession enter the karmic?/reincarnation wheel? Like can a powerful demon entity get a human body that way? How exactly does possession work?

 

Getting bogged down in real life philosophy is all well in good, but it stops being good if it lessens interesting adventure threads.

 

Edit: Another caveat is that in Pillars the realms gods are "active" in the setting. Meaning miracles/epoch's might actually occur regularly or irregularly(but do happen). Seeing is believing for many. Though even gods might be viewed by some as just empowered souls. For instance a school of wizards in Faerun(Toril) have that opinion. Interesting speculations regardless.

[Will PoE have level scaling? (Please no)]

Picks up poo - take that you filthy ape! LOL. Let's get the funny's out of the way.

 

Egads man, this thread is going no where fast. Scaling isn't what I'd prefer, but certain games need it to ensure they are at least playable. I gave a good example earlier with Elderscrolls, with a FPS action type game - a player could easily break the game by abusing poor AI or enemy pathing. If a high level beasty could be farmed due to inability for the monster to go through a door or some such - it'd lead to level boosting that'd turn the game into a grind instead of an exploration game. Why explore when the respawning giant can be killed easily standing outside a doorway it can't exit or some such. Otherwise figure it'd turn into a grindfest like every MMO ever made, not needing content since players have no incentive to go to low level area's (or leave the high level ones) if the loot worthless for their level and the monsters pose no challenge.

 

I think Stun brings up a good point (quite a few posts back) with the idea that game developers don't give enough challenging game play to ensure a fun game without level scaling in some instances. I really think this is a easy to harp about - hard to actually put into practice. Really AI in games is very complicated - but on the other hand is very simple. A game that's a FPS or action hybrid title has a lot more player skill in the equation - leading to the potential boosting I mentioned. This really might not be a problem in a game with lesser scope then an Elderscrolls game. With more clearly defined areas - an experience system not based on defeating enemies at all - I could really see this game rewarding a stealth rpg character more then most previous systems.

 

A lot of the grind in MMO's, exploration games, and what not is due to greater threats giving a larger experience/loot drop mechanic leading to character power creep totally destroying the difficulty without scaling. This game(Pillars) could very well have enemies that are so OP that even at max level they are nigh impossible to beat. Meaning at no point do you feel capable of taking them on conventionally. Or it could be that they are only beatable at high levels, at all others avoidance is the best policy. So those that like a challenge can try to beat them tactically either earlier or when intended and enjoy that gameplay element.

 

Scaling shouldn't be necessary if the developers know the endgame player power levels and planned accordingly. Earlier zones shouldn't be harder then later ones - period.

 

ON the whole people flaming each other - this is a community. Posting a flaming comment without adding anything to the conversation is mean spirited and needs to stop.This isn't a hardcore debate on primetime or some such. It's a community of backers and fans of Obisidian. Treat someone like you want to be treated, otherwise this place will devolve into a hive of scum and villainy - quite like Moss Eisley - because all the cool Han Solo's and Chewies will fly away to Alderan - just saying ;p

["But it was made for us."]

Tanis Half-elven wasn't the worst. It's more a case of the writers obviously cared more about certain characters in their narrative and it showed. By that Tanis was a much stronger character in Tanis half-elven the Shadow years then he ever was in Weis and Hickman's books. Heck they(Weis & Hickman) killed him off with an ogre one shoting him in the back of the head with a club - when he should have been quite high level. (Lets' not even start on how a damn ranger and an elf to boot should have good senses.)

 

Yeah, I was following the books quite faithfully up till that point, I believe Cameron threw himself down a stairwell when his children died. Left me quite disillusioned with the whole series and stopped picking them up.

[How do you think it would impact people to know, with dead certainty, they will reincarnate?]

Another factor is what determines a good reincarnation? This could like be one of the largest differences from region to region in the game setting I would assume. I think Jarmo's on to something - by that some societies would likely favour bravery and sacrifice. Or not, if it's believed that the ruling family is descended from gods let's say(similar to Egyptian Pharoahs slightly) - and there souls always reincarnate within their own family. So it's obviously a bad thing to try to rebel against them. Slaves must be those who commited evil in their former incarnations and must atone with a life of servitude - so rebelling in that instance would be against the "holy" order of things. Truly this concept can lead to some really interesting complex and mature topics that most games just don't deal with. Is slavery right? wrong? What if the gods say it's alright? - especially if they are active like in faerun or tamrial settings. Even more interesting is if such a deity is evil and ensures all who oppose him/her come reincarnate as a lesser class. Keeping on that tangent such a deity may in fact not be evil as such - just morally wrong. The potential plot lines just with slavery are cool.

 

What if souls aren't just for sentient beings - like they can be reincarnated in a wolf or some other creature. Is it something like when you die the soul travels to the nearest vessel? Would this lead to religious zealot killers placing insect eggs or gestating worms etc nearby targets to ensure a terrible reincarnation? I hope that Pillars explores these aspects of the game setting. Lot's of interesting possible coronations of reincarnation however it ends up working.

["But it was made for us."]

"Half-assed MMO clone" ... doesn't sound right, but never played one--yet ... still don't see the danger. Gonna go make some toast now, and ponder the veracity of that point where unstoppable presuppostion meets immovable expectation.

 

Oh, and I want in on this shoulder fad ...

 

*shrugs* 

 

Pop Dragon's Dogma into your console yet? Damn, that game is the most dull single player experience ever. It's like if they made an MMO and decided to make it singleplayer without changing anything - so all the quests are still lackluster fetch or slay quests. Really that's the best example of a MMO clone singleplayer rpg I can think of.

[How do you think it would impact people to know, with dead certainty, they will reincarnate?]

 

 

If reincarnation was certain then people would commit mass suicides to eventually be born in a wealthy family and good life...wouldn't you?

 

If it was all random, then certainly. Crappy life -> try again.

 

But if there's a moral code by which things work, like suicide = sin -> you're downgraded in next life,

patient sufferin = valued -> upgraded in next life, things would work out all different.

Sure, but few things come in to play.

 

Do we remember our previous lives?

1. If yes then we can expect a "Dalai Lama" effect. No matter where you were born you will still be the same person to some people.

That means once a king = always a king, because if the previous king died his loyal subordinates will try to find his reincarnation and reinstate on the throne. And this apply to tyrants, cult leaders, rebels etc. 

That means revenge can be taken to the whole new level of extreme.

That means no war, feud or rivalry can ever stop.

 

2. If not then there is no way to say for certain that our previous lives had any impact on where we are born after reincarnation.

That means there will be those who say good in this life -> reward in the next, but also some would say the opposite, some would say do whatever you want if they kill you you will reincarnate.

 

Also on the whole reincarnation thing where do the souls come from? Is there a limited or unlimited number of souls? The whole concept is really tricky.

 

 

Another note on 1. Even if reincarnation works in the essence of no memories or experiences are passed on - all that is lost upon rebirth let's say. Some might still look for the king's/cult leaders reincarnation regardless. Quite interesting - the possible affects that would have. Like if cult leader killed- swears he/she will return. This leads to the possibility of pretenders or even someone to claim they used magic to ensure they come back in a certain vessel. Man that could lead to a man made god - aberration deity or Undead horror type deal.

 

Even a character seeking revenge might never feel sated. By that killing the focus of his/her rage didn't make the pain go away - so it must be because the soul of the perpetrator is still out there. Furthering revenge on unknowing reincarnated character.

 

Never really thought about this fact of Pillars. Could lead to some cool plot developments for sure.

[Will Pillars of Eternity have better combat system than Dragon Age Origins?]

I noticed someone brought up Beholders - in particular why they weren't explained in game (Powers, what not.) I really believe that was due to a meta-aspect assumed by the developer on the player. As a teenager playing the Infinity engine games - personally I would know every met enemy's innate resistances and most likely their powers. The Beholder in particular to anyone who played 2nd AD&D was a staple monster. It appeared on the cover of my monster manual.

 

Even though in current editions they seem to have feel to the wayside, the appeared often in modules and were often a good go to for a strong challenge for pc's. Frankly I can understand many complaints about being waylaid by beholders. I would know to flee but someone having never played a ad&d game? Another thing is that the old edition didn't have Challenge Ratings. Heck I remember having a lv5 party fight a Marilith demon(The tenari woman with multiple arms - snake tail). Frankly in 2nd they could be considered better then a Balor due to their 7 base attacks. Being a 14year old, man I tpk'd my players or sometimes just pulled punches to allow them to live and win. It was a dark time. ;p

["But it was made for us."]

This is going to come across as sexist, but I'm totally for "boob-plate" and Luis Ruyo armour in general. The absence of sense in woman's armour has been around for decades. Don't ruin it for the rest of us. ;p

 

On a more serious note though, doesn't the scale, leather, etc armour's use 3d poly wrapping. By that the armour is fitted to the 3d image's contours, rather then say heavier armor that literally covers the entire body render. I know some people have been on about scale's show's that a woman has boobs! (Really are we ashamed of the woman's form now? This game is intended to be rated M right?) From a created 3d image standpoint, using male armour on a female render is going to cause clipping. Realistically a woman would have her breasts depressed by the weight sure, but a 3d render is weightless and instead we'd the image's breasts would clip/show through the armour.

 

A low cost saving to this would be to use the male body model on both renders - leading potentially to terrible woman walking/trotting/running animations. Really a woman does in fact walk differently to a man due to their hips.

 

Now where are the torches, I assume something else deserves to be chased right now like an undead Frankenstein.

[Will PoE have level scaling? (Please no)]

@Ffordesoon & Hiro : Man you guys crack me up. Posting alternating opinions on a forum - isn't about winning. (or spinning the wheels on the same thing for hours on end.) It's just shooting the **** with other the posters. Heck, I dont' know for others but me and my friends talk about rules loop holes and how to better interpret rpg game rules all the time.

 

@Leyphs - That was a good point about differing strengths of town guards. Usually a large town would have better experienced guards - due to a higher rate of crime, just more crime going on, also would be more of them. I usually keep the lv3-4 and throw in a Lv5-8 watch lieutenant. On comparisons to army miltias - regular or otherwise. They should be treated different then town guards as they are different forces. One could reasonably expect a higher level of npc in elite platoons or experienced legions.

 

I'm not sure who posted that Aragon should be considered a town guard - if taken as his intended role in the story, he'd be best considered a Player character(At worst a party member to Frodo's troupe). Heck he's the origin of the two weapon ranger trope.

 

On level scaling in Pillars, I don't think it'll really be needed. Why? Mostly due to the low character level of the game. Lv1 through 12. I think it's reasonable to expect the final "main" boss to be a challenge to a lv10-12 party. With the hidden optional boss (let's be honest, we all expect a Firkragg type boss - Likely at the bottom of the mega dungeon.) That will be even harder then the core path boss. Likely the game will be zoned in sections, first town hub lv1-6 - while the second hub lv7-10. With the hardest optional content being designed for lv12 pcs.

On an aside here, with Obsidian freeing the player from experience gain due to killing an opponent. We might actually get to see the pc gain strength due to less tangible reasons. Like adventuring for that +5 sword or a lost library filled with forgotten grimores(purely loot based side content), or mystical sites that grant additional or unleash latent soul energy in the people who pilgrimage there. (actual level ups or optional bonus perks - bear with) This is one of the cooler things Josh mentioned rules wise for Pillars. How will that type of system effect leveling/pc power scaling? It's likely going to allow a much stronger reign on the developers side of the pc's strength for a given encounter. Basically making linear the players level progress despite side content/quests.

 

For instance without level scaling in Skyrim, a player could break the game by exploiting a weakness in the enemy AI of a much stronger enemy (Like it can't fit through a door, or won't cross an invisible threshold - insert other exploit here) from a difficult zone to boost level. From let's say lv1 to lv20. Making the game less fun - and let's be honest. It'd ruin the gameplay if it was in fact intended to be not have level scaled area's. A video game isn't quite the same as a pen and paper game, it's hard to see where level scaling might ruin or in fact not ruin a game.

[Will PoE have level scaling? (Please no)]

Leyphys brought up a good point about level progression why does the world remain static while a player increases in strength?

 

Frankly this is the best rebuttal to that, it also leads into why critical path characters might scale as well. In an rpg world adventurers gain levels and equipment because they take on risks. By that the barkeep in the local inn, or the rats subsisting in the basement of widow MacGee didn't brave the forgotten keep of the Craven Lord Dragovich (Insert any dungeon here) Slaying him, and ensuring no more undead rise and attack travelers going through the forest. The idea that the barkeep, or god forbid the rats that have been living in the widows basement eating her foodstuffs - if attacked after the forgotten keep is now character level +n is ridiculous.

 

The main antagonist and his minions are like the player characters - proactive pursuing their goals. They are taking risks which lead to power progression in rpg fantasy land. Potentially taking enough risks to scale with the players own progression.

 

I have to say, having DM'ed quite a few people over the years character progression - from the players perspective - is often power fantasy. If I ever dm'ed a game, the idea that guards in a sleepy township patrolling try to arrest a group of paragon level players committing crimes. It's going to go terribly wrong for the guards. If it goes any other way, total player revolt - besides it makes no damn sense.  Was this town the retirement centre of the heroes of the last great war and they all work as petty guards now? If not immersion broken.

 

Crpgs at least at heart, tend to take more inspiration from the pen and paper games. At the same instance if a group of starting characters lv1-3 take on the city guards the players should expect to be defeated. Usually in my games guards are around lv3-4 with the captain being around Lv10-12 due to them usually being a named retired adventurer. Using planned encounters in D&D usually the formula of CL-1, CL (2 encounters), CL+1,CL+4. Bam got enough encounters for an adventure. If the players start a battle outside of planned encounters, then CL is meaningless. A beggar, rat, barkeep, or old widow should be relatively weak and easily dispatched. Same with wolves or other animals. Players decide to go hunt a black bear, they should roll over them at high levels. Players taking on and defeating a dragon or extra-dimensional god entity does not mean every wolf on the Prime material plane just grew adamant teeth.

["But it was made for us."]

Should Pillars of Eternity even be considered a retro-type game? Wasn't the entire pitch what an infinity engine type of game - isometric, tactical, text dialog rpg would be like if made today? When I watched the kickstarter video I took it as Obsidian has the pedigree. They just need the funding to create the game that funding didn't exist for. Most of these games use the term "Spiritual Successor" for a reason.

 

From all the rules and lore mentioned in the updates, I personally couldn't be more excited for Pillars eventual release.

 

On the Call of Duty insult, which is often spewed  on pretty much every forum. It's terrible and misplaced whenever it's used. By that the Call of Duty franchise is actually quite good. Sure each game is basically a re skinning of the same game-play mechanics, but that same game-play arguably does one of the best jobs at first person shooters in the medium. Having played it online, it's an excellent, balanced skill based game.

 

My personal take on critism's of many of the kickstarters, is that the customer - aka backer - feels more like an investor in the kickstarter idea. This leads to an entirely different mindset in those backers. For instance if I had backed the Occulus Rift, and if you haven't been keeping up with it, the inventing company sold it to Facebook after the successful kickstarter. The customer would feel a lot more vitriol and anger at the company. Then if say - they had just paid for an initial product and later learned that the creator of was bought by another. Like if you bought a new vacuum cleaner by Dust Devil and later learned they were bought by Dyson a month after purchase. The former a backer; might swear never to buy a product with a facebook logo. While the latter would just go oh well now Dyson owns dust devil, not too big vacuum cleaners are still going to be made.

 

Quite interesting differences to be sure, as backing a project on kickstarter is in reality the equivalent of a pre-order. Just on a much longer time scale then traditionally expected.

[Will Pillars of Eternity have better combat system than Dragon Age Origins?]

A better comparison would have been Dragon age bestiary vs Neverwinter Nights 2 one. Taking into account the cost of creating full blown 3d composite images rather then 2d paperdolls used in the old infinity engine games. To me it seems much the same as voiced narrative dialog to unspoken written dialog in the old games. It was a matter of scale, the cost in time and money has to be higher to create a beholder as a 3d composite then a 2d paperdoll animation.

[How does PoE innovate?]

 

Okay, I think I'm getting a better idea of the position your supporting. Would it be fair to say that you think rogues shouldn't be the equal of of fighters in combat situations, because fighters are not equal to rogues in non-combat situations?

That's a fairly accurate assessment of my stance, yes. There's more to it of course, but that's good enough.

 

Good, I wanted to make sure putting words in your mouth. I'm sure there's more to it, but I find it can helpful to make brief summaries like this on occasion.

 

 

If so, would that opinon change if rogues were not more skilled in non-combat situations?

You mean, like, if they weren't more skilled at picking locks, disarming traps, silently sneaking into places they're not supposed to be, spying, scouting, and laying traps? That's a loaded question. Of course my entire stance would change. If they weren't the *best* at this stuff, they wouldn't even be rogues, would they.

 

But that's a good point actually. Classless systems can potentially be the best systems. Because the player can pick and choose the specific skills he's going to build his clean-slate character with, without having to adhere to any actual skill sets or arch-types. So of course, if we're dealing with that kind of system we wouldn't be having a rogue vs. warrior discussion in the first place. 

 

Maybe an example would be helpful here as I think I didn't make myself the most clear before. Lets imagine a system where there are two classes, X and Y, and 6 non-combat skills A, B, C, D, E, & F. Class X starts with bonus points in skills A and B, while class Y starts with bonus points in skills E and F. Each class also gets the same number of skill points per level (maybe have the exact number tied to an attribute score of some kind), and you can only put one point into any given skill per level. With this hypothetical system classes X and Y are equally skilled in non-combat situations (assuming each skill has roughly equal utility), but class X will always be better at skills A and B than class Y when comparring two chracaters of the same level. If we mapped this onto the rogue/fighter discussion, we could say that rogue is not more skilled at non-combat situations than a fighter, but the rogue will always be best at the skills you mentioned.

 

So if the non-combat system looks somewhat like the one I've described above, would you still think that fighters should be better in comnbat situations than rogues?

 

 

My understanding is that this is the goal of PoE, rogues are not more skilled in non-combat than fighters, they just work better in some situations over others.

Well, again, I'll wait and see how everything works in PoE. We simply don't have the whole picture yet to make a judgement call on this matter. But there are a couple of specific things that Josh has said. He HAS said that while every class can sneak and pick locks (for example), none will be better at it than a rogue who chooses to focus on those skills. And this is no different than how 3e D&D does it. That's the way it should be. What I'm worried about though is combat. Josh has already defined Rogues as "Heavy Hitters". But since we haven't had the Warrior class update yet, we don't know what that really means. 

 

Well from what I recall of D&D 3e,  a rogue wasn't neccesarily the best at stealth or lockpicking. If another class has those as class skills, they could be just as good as the rogue at any given level. The rogue, however, had an inherent boost to the number of skill points they recieved per level so they could max out those skills without losing functionality elsewhere as would likely be the case with some other class.

 

Actually a Rogue was the best at lockpicking and any class skill on its list - due to a the option of taking Skill mastery at 10th level. That allowed the character to take 10 on any skill check, assuming a skill focus feat, that would ensure success without rolling a dice. That class ability was also tied to the Int score(could take 10 on more skills), which also increased skill points gained a level.

 

It really isn't fair to compare a D&D 3.5 fighter to any other class, as it's sole bonus was feat choice - bar none it was the weakest base class. If someone took the class it was a dip(1-2lvs), a full fighter was worse in every aspect to any other class in the system. It could be out-fought, out-skilled, and out maneuvered by any other class in the system. They were jack of all trades in combat maneuvers, but not in succeeding in using them. Compare fighters from Pathfinder or any other rpg system with fighters. If someone picked a fighter in 3.5 it was a question of when, not if they were going to transition to a Prestige or multiclass.

 

If PoE was basing the Fighter off of the D&D 3.5E version, ha - worse class ever. Hopefully it doesn't, not really coming in on either side of your argument guys, but hopefully the Fighter is better balanced then the D&D version that's for sure.

[Will Pillars of Eternity have better combat system than Dragon Age Origins?]

The combat should be fairly different then Dragon Age. Due to DA being a 3rd person action rpg title with cool-downs. From a gameplay stand-point it should play closer to a RTS - with a pause option. By that the player viewpoint should be isometric without the ability to zoom in to player level - like the old Infinity games. I might not be explaining this properly, but I really don't expect a game similar in gameplay to EA's Dragon age franchise.

[New PC Gamer interview with Josh.]

If actual flight mechanics are put in the game, a ranged weapon in the weapon swap palette will be necessary.

 

As long the air battles don't devolve into "The monster flies 50 -100ft into the air, beyond the range of your thrown weapon" at this point I start complaining as to why I bother ever picking a weapon other then a Composite Longbow. Pen and Paper woes my friends, at least after 6th level. Seems to be when all the "it's invisible" and "flying" come up. You haven't experienced flying in an rpg until epic level. Got everyone flying around, have to find distances between two different elevated targets. The best thing about video games is not doing the number crunching yourself.

[Weapons getting renown or fame after defeating enemies]

This sounds awfully cool. The only problem I could see with this is if only the slaying weapon/character gets the buff. For instance this would lead to a player blooding' the enemy, (Read - low hp.) Then withdrawing the rest of the party to ensure the character you wants to recieve the buff gets it. Would have to be applied over all the characters participating in the encounter to ensure that didn't happen.

 

Teknoman brings up a good point as well, about Grimores -bows - or even a martial artists fists. This is likely one of those things sounds cool on paper not so good in practice. I think this is an idea we won't be seeing implemented in a game - computer or otherwise any time soon. Unless a game's mechanics are based on that items themselves are the where the player recieves his powers/attacks/etc from. Just my two cents, interesting concept none the less. Good Mod idea for sure.

[Josh Sawyer on dealing with grognards]

Amen, there Monte. Usually kits and prestige class are all about power gaming anyway. Players can't really play to the sub-class whatever in a computer game. For instance playing a bounty hunter in BG2, when if ever do you actually go collecting bounties? Flavor classes have no flavor if the story doesn't recongize it. Which is often the case when the Player's avatar is a blank slate character. The game's plot is better served with the core base classes with no fancy topping in most instances.

[Josh Sawyer on dealing with grognards]

"Kits" in 2nd AD&D were introduced in the class handbooks. (EG: Fighters Handbook, Wizards Handbook, Barbarian's Handbook) If your more familar with D20 pathfinder they were basically Archtypes on top of a class. A Gallant was a Bard Kit(Think Tristan), A Brute was Barbarian kit with natural attacks(Tarzan). Barbarian was not a fighter kit, as the barbarian was a distinct class in AD&D 2nd. On top of that Gary Gygax didn't write most of these books. (I could break them out and actually check if it matters.)

 

Often they just were plain better then being a core class. Usually just added weapon profiencies and abilities not present in the core class, like the Fighter Mymridon. Added 2 weapon proficiences, had no negatives I believe other then having the character have to be in a military hiearchy.

 

How the infinity engine games treated them was similar to a seperate class, and the monk was a full derivative of the 3rd Edition Monk, as I don't recall there even being a monk class in 2nd edition. Unless you count the monk appearing in the original Oriental Adventures, which introduced a slew of base classes (Samurai, Ninja, Sohei, Wu-jen, Bushi, and Barbarian) - and if playing in the setting only the classes in that book were expected to be used. The 2nd Edition monk appearing in the OA had a a D4 hit dice, which made them pretty crappy. The monk kit in the complete Cleric handbook was more the Friar Tuck monk then Kain from Kung-fu.

 

I was quite active playing AD&D 2nd Edition in my time, and someone saying a Mage with the Beserker kit is it's own class is funny to me. No, not it's own class.

Prestige Classes are quite different then kits, as a kit is chosen at character creation, much like an archtype in Pathfinder. A prestige class has progression of class abilities, usually a kit in 2nd was as I said, weapon proficiency or minor ability for a role-playing disadvantage, or a retardation of a core class ability. Read bounty hunter - thief kit(20pts intead of 30pts). The Infinity engine version of the bounty hunter was different then the pnp version as it had Fighters Thac0. As I recall the only kit that did that was the Swashbuckler I think, and it was a fighter kit that allowed minor rogue abilities. (Lossing armor prof. which was a big deal as max dex mod wasn't part of the rules in that edition)

[Regarding Paradox Interactive, DRM's and GoG]

As to Crusader Kings 2, I can say after having checked it out on steam a few months ago, the whole 20+ DLC was enough for me to give the game a pass. As in I will personally never buy it. The game could be complete without them, don't know. Not going to find out. This isn't me being an ass, it's me being intelligent in how I spend my money. Not being interested in large DLC post release strategies of game content. This release strategy did likely affect the game from day one, and by design. If you think otherwise, I'd be raising an eyebrow.

 

EDIT FOR GREAT JUSTICE:

On the original topic on DRM. If Obisidan and paradox make the game tied to steam keys, I don't see myself grumbling to much. I would prefer the game to run with a serial key from the physical game disc though. Still I remember buying Diablo 2 years ago (when it first came out) and a few years later dusting off the box having lost the serial keys(printed on the back of the manual if I recall). Damn was I upset for awhile, funny in retrospect. I hope Pillars will be good enough for me to dust off years after release to replay. DRM isn't fun, but I understand that publishers require it.

 

On the topic of GoG, I usually dont' buy games from there. Reason being I actually own the original CD's for many of the older titles they offer. Yeah, I'm that kind of collector. If GoG isn't one of the games sellers I can forsee a flood of angry backers, I won't be one, but a flood none the less.

[Regarding Paradox Interactive, DRM's and GoG]

As to DA2 having mods Jarrakul, I'll have to be honest and say I didn't really look for them. I finished the game quite early on, and never replayed it. I did notice the 9 pieces of DLC armor and noted the NPCs not being as customizable as DAO. Still the game doesn't seem to have any side-quest mods; though most games don't. The game itself was average, and worse then it's predessor. I did finish it just never had the urge to replay it. I did feel like the game had to much backtraking, but that was the whole re-useing areas problem many account to the game.

 

As to Fluff, a mentality that selling side-content like character portraits does lead to cutting content to sell later. It's seems to be getting worse with each iteration of a game starting to do it. If a game has a feature to import custom portraits why sell a portrait pack as DLC down the line? More money can be garnered from the end-user by having fewer intial portraits, and making it difficult to import user created ones. That's rather simplistic take on it.

 

Just seems this generation of games is more vabid, maybe I'm putting to much blame on DLC. It could be more indicitive of less original ideas or developers and publishers not taking risks rehashing old material. Sorry if I come across as trolling you guys, I don't really post on this particular forum very often and mentioning DLC/microtransations is like my big red button.

[Regarding Paradox Interactive, DRM's and GoG]

Fluff, if games sell portrait backs, or character customizations as DLC, what do you think happens as a result? You've played BG, IWD, other infinity engine games I noted from your other posts. So if you compare one of those titles to let's say an EA rpg, example? Dragon Age 2. 1 - No modding, 2 - Fewer PC paperdoll costumes/armor, 3 - Fewer side-quests. These are all things you can sell seperately. The NO MODDING is obviously due to the fact user created content will lead to less people purchasing number 2 and 3. The practice leads to inferior games by design!

 

If Obsidian starts DLC'ing every component of their game I'll likely never back another project by them, and wait for steam sales/bargain bin - just like anything EA/Bioware might put out. Quite simple. As another aside, I really don't think Obsidian developers intend to do this, in fact in their kickstarter pitch, they said they were going back to the way expanions used to be, an entirely new storyline. Not a single episode of a prolonged DLC release strategy.