illathid

Yeah, I agree with Gromnir. Secret Police evokes a very specific image; they are the Gestapo and the Stasi, the KGB and the NKVD. Hell, the whole point of making the police force secret is so that there is no answer to the question "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" A secret service is something else entirely.

The Engwithans created constructs using animancy, so I could see modern animancers trying to do the same or even expand upon the idea. Maybe we will encounter an animancer working on soul powered vehicles and machines, trying to make the world a better place.

Well the update where they talk about mentions other methods for creating undead besides animancy. I could definitely see the tomb thing happening for instance.

Well since PoE isn't the only project Obsidian is working on right now, they'd probably attend regardless. And by showing off PoE they can maybe get some major media attention and build hype for the games release. This is very good for us as the possibility of a sequel will be based on how well PoE sells at release. So if you want a sequel, you better damn well hope there's people wanting to pick up the game at retail.

I don't see that as a problem but an opportunity. The problem as I see it is that because of this they tend to not be balanced well at all. So it's not about interesting trade offs anymore but things you're required to take to have the most mechanically powerful character. And it just seems messed up to me when Flaws become the key to getting the most power out of the system.

The problem I've found with weakness of that sort is that while they are supposed to give more roleplaying opportunities, they actually end up being a min-maxers best friend.

yet another limit on how common undead would be: religion. if there is religious reasons to find animacy deplorable, then am guessing we has yet other reason to shrink our pool o' potential willing victims. some folks is trying to have cake and it it too. you want undead creation mysterious enough so that otherwise reasonable rich people would be hoodwinked into making themselves a guinea pig for an animancer. at the same time, you want undead widespread enough to be a crpg staple monster. if you make mysterious and obscure, then you is reinforcing Gromnir's criticism that undead necessarily is gonna be rare. HA! Good Fun! See, I personally don't care if undead are "widespread enough to be a crpg staple monster." Given the lore description of them it seems unlikely, and I don't see why that's a problem. it's a problem 'cause Gromnir said that based on descriptions given to us thus far, corporeal undead would be rare. folks disagreed. that is how we has got to this point. HA! Good Fun! I I thought you were saying that the idea itself was ridiculous, regardless of how rare or prevalent corporeal undead are. But I see now you're it was ridiculous idea if corporeal undead were as prevalent as they tend to be in RPGs. My mistake.

yet another limit on how common undead would be: religion. if there is religious reasons to find animacy deplorable, then am guessing we has yet other reason to shrink our pool o' potential willing victims. some folks is trying to have cake and it it too. you want undead creation mysterious enough so that otherwise reasonable rich people would be hoodwinked into making themselves a guinea pig for an animancer. at the same time, you want undead widespread enough to be a crpg staple monster. if you make mysterious and obscure, then you is reinforcing Gromnir's criticism that undead necessarily is gonna be rare. HA! Good Fun! See, I personally don't care if undead are "widespread enough to be a crpg staple monster." Given the lore description of them it seems unlikely, and I don't see why that's a problem.

Gromnir, the undead side effect is not the reason animancy is banned by most governments. IIRC it's banned because of "religious" reasons, and likely has been banned as such for much longer than the undead creation process has been around.

Well it wouldn't be for every battle/AI. It would be limited to the intelligent antagonists and organizations that it would make sense for. Take the original campaign in NWN2, after you've gained the attention of Black Garius he starts scrying you as you battle the githyanki. A character with a high spot could possibly notice the scrying was occurring. Regardless of that, Garius watches your fights and determines you do lots of fire damage, so when he sets up a fight for you makes sure to give his minions fire resistance. If you noticed the scurrying though, you could decided to use only cold damage instead. See no hive mind needed, just a reasonably smart opponent willing to acquire information about the party and then use it.

Quiet You! You'll summon Pun Pun!

Given the current description, I'm guessing that this will not be the case for your standard corporeal undead (Vampires, ghouls, zombies, & skeletons). However, that still leaves the possibility for lots of different incorporeal undead to exist. this seems appropriate considering the settings focus on souls.

Did I miss something? Why is their credibility wavering in your eyes? I'm going to take a wild guess here and say he's talking about: a) the partnership with Paradox; b) Obsidian's bad reputation for buggy games (as opposed to Bethesda's good reputation for buggy games); or c) the fact that the Devs have said aspect X wouldn't be exactly like it was in BG2, and is there fore worse.

I'm almost positive the first 3 portraits are example of the rewards from the $3,000 pledge tier. So your complaint there is in effect "I don't like how similar these people who gave a lot of money look." Or to be more charitable your complaint should be directed at the backers who sent the base pictures, not Obsidian.

Could someone maybe do me a favor describe what they mean by high/low fantasy? I had understood the term to basically be an indicator of the presence of magic (high fantasy means lots of magic, low means very little), but seeing how people are using the term in this thread, I think I'm mistaken. Any help would be appreciated!

Yeah, although I'd argue that has more to do with PS:T interface than the actual gameplay graphics.

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. 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? 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. In that case, no. I wouldn't be in favor of such a system. Warriors should always do more damage in melee (be it against single or multiple targets) than Rogues. At best, if we're dead set on giving rogues something "equal or better" then fine, lets gives rogues better defensive skills in combat. Let them be more agile. Let them survive a fireball or sword swing by dodging it, instead of absorbing it with a smile like a warrior. You've just mentioned something I hadn't touched on yet but adds another wrinkle. You say "warriors should always do more damage in melee," does that apply to ranged combat as well? What if the situation was that rogues did 5 damage per tick in melee but, 10 damage per tick in ranged, and vise versa for fighters? I apologise for asking so many questions. After spending a lmost a decade studying philosophy and law, the socratic method has been beaten into me pretty heavily.

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? If so, would that opinon change if rogues were not more skilled in non-combat situations? 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. I'm thinking as just a basic attack situation, regardless of weapon choice. if the fighter has only one arget that target only takes 5 damage per tick, but if there are two targets, each takes 5 damage. The goal of this example was to better understand what you meant by "damage output" in terms of different combat situations (i.e. is single target damage output more important than multi target?).

I'll take a shot at this, since I happen to also hold the viewpoint that rogues shouldn't be equals to fighters on the battlefield. A couple of caveats, however, before I give my explanation. First, I will not be speaking in PoE terms, since I don't know the specifics behind its mechanics (and neither does anyone else here) and Second, I WILL occasionally be using D&D terms but only because it's easier (for me at least) to conceptualize and explain things in those terms. But such explanations can easily be applied to any other system you wish to apply them to. So here goes. By saying that fighters should be better at fighting than Rogues I mean: 1) They should hit harder on average. (higher damage output. But note: I have no problems with rogues occasionally being able to "spike damage" more than fighters...ie. backstabs) 2) They should be more resilient (more hitpoints, be more resistant to debilitating combat effects, like knockdown and stagger and stun) 3) They should have more combat skills (They should hit more and miss less; They should get More weapon proficiencies; and more weapon style choices (Yeah, that also means that they should be better at dual-wielding than rogues, contrary to even the D&D trope), they should get more attacks per round and have more melee talents, etc.) Oh and this should go without saying: I'm using superlatives here, NOT absolutes. Meaning, I still believe that you should be able to, if you wish, build a combat-centric rogue who's still great at fighting... even a master on the battle field....just not as good at fighting as a fighter. Thanks for taking the time to respond, although I'd still like to see Vol's response as well. You've listed 3 things you think fights should be better than rogues at, what if not all of these are true? What if rogues have a higher average damage than fighters but are less resiliant and have less combat skills? Or worse resiliance and average damage, but more combat skills? Or, ignoring the other catagories you mentioned for now, what if Rogues have higher average single target damage, but fighters have have higher multi target damage? So for example, a rogue can do 7 damage per every tick in combat to a single target, and a fighter can do 5 damage to two targets per tick. Would you say in these cases that rogues are equal to or better than fighters on the battlefield?

Vol, I am asking this once again because you didn't respond the first time. I'd like to understand your position, but I can't until I understand what you mean by "can fight as good or better than." What do you mean by "better?"

I imagine the rest spots in dungeons to be somewhat like the safe rooms in Left 4 Dead. That is easily guarded locations where a group of people could hold out for some time if necessary.

This is really interesting. Does this apply to armor as well?

Dwarves should never be the equal of anyone. Stumpy little jerks can hardly see over the table, their arms are too stubby to wield any weapon worth using, and they're clearly too dumb to be spellcasters of any quality. It's only this "you get a trophy just for participating" watered-down world we live in that lets people pretend dwarves are equal. But then Dwarves in cRPGs are not like those of Disney's classic film or like the Imp of Game of Thrones. Don't fall for PC propaganda from those east-coast elitists. *Ahem* you have clearly misunderstood sir. The dwarf race in PoE or by the pen-and-paper standard are humanoid creatures, but not humans. C r e a t u r e s. With humanoid characteristics. Much like is an Ogre-Orc-Goblin-Bugbear-Gnoll-Aumaua-Elf-Orlan They do not share any of the inabilities you mentioned and they can excel in anything they put their minds into. Of course past tradition has set them as excellent fighters first and foremost, those with fierceness, might and skill that can make the average human soldier tremble in their sight. No, I don't think he misunderstood at all. You get that that's making a joke right?

Yeah, this was part of my question to Vol on the last page... Which it seems he ignored.

Well your wizard example you mentioned above is a bit off. Fireball can hit more than one target and so it's total damage is dependent upon how many targets are caught in the blast. It could very quickly outstrip the rogues damage potential in a target rich environment. Another thing to be wary of is to assume that the best way to determine class balance is to see who would win in a one on one fight (not saying your doing this Hiro, just trying to speak generally). Different classes have strengths and weakness that can make them better or worse in a particular fight. For example, you wouldn't say "Rock always beats Scissors in a duel, Rock is overpowered."