Marceror

I got the impression fighters and rogues were starting to be looked at more closely.

Ideally this system won't nerf any class. It will just make some of them more effective at pushing through more battles. So I don't see how this system is locking any of the classes out of something that they can do currently.

I hear you on the flexibility. I'm not great with the idea that all fighters have "very high" melee ability and "low" ranged, but that's another conversation. I'm generally okay with how Paladins are less effective tanks than fighters, but I wouldn't want to see them diminished further in this capacity. That's why I am suggesting that they have the same multiplier as fighters if this new endurance/health multiplier system is instituted.

That's almost crazy enough to make sense. Almost!

Though technically speaking, I guess the barbarian would need to be at a x9 or x10 in order to be improved from what they are currently. Or perhaps they receive a feat that somehow improves the x8, similar to how they receive a feat currently that gives them more staying power. Not sure what they feat would look like. Maybe it just adds an additional x2 modifier, but damn they are going to have a lot of health. Well I think they get the same attack bonuses. And at least the Paladin can use Flames of Devotion once per encounter for a nice offensive boost. They also get their auras and lay on hands to even things out. I'm okay with their role being different, but they at least need to be able to hold their own as a tank, just not do it as well as a fighter.

If I were to guess at a good starting multiplier I might do it this way: Wizards: x4 (keeps them on par with current) Priests, Rangers, Druids, Chanters, Ciphers, Rogues: x5 Fighters, Paladins, Monks: x6 Barbarians: x8 EDIT: If too OP, monks perhaps slide down to x5.

I would think Paladins should have the same multiplier as fighters. Fighters already have all the defensive buffs on top of that. Paladins should remain effective frontliners, slightly more offensive than fighters, but less defensive.

I don't know if I'm just being petty, but I'm rather bothered by the idea of classes ending up with godlike health (compared to IE, D&D and similar at least). If the multiplier for a fighter is, for example x6. Than a fighter with 100 endurance would have 600 health. Seems excessive. But I wouldn't want to see endurance reduced because that's going to make characters too fragile for purposes of remaining on their feet in a battle.

I would hope they wouldn't go below 4:1 for wizards, since that would reduce their survivability from what it currently is. I thought the idea was to make tanks last longer, rather than make other classes less durable.

I like this. One question though: will we be able to affect the health/stamina ratio in any way, e.g. via abilities? For example, I would assume that wizards have less health than fighters. One of the most fun wizards I rolled in the beta was an armored frontline wizard blasting away with those cones and lines. He would need higher health than your traditional glass cannon. Will it be possible for me to take this into account in character creation? Higher Con should contribute to more endurance, and therefore more health, I would think.

Good to hear. Thanks for popping in late to provide the update Adam!

I'm not totally understanding this based on the explanation. Does this mean that a fighter with 30 endurance will have 60 health? Or more like 120 health? Because if it's not closer to the latter, it seems like it would cause characters to die FASTER. Edit - Or perhaps the other option is they have something like 180 (x6) health. Maybe Barbarians have 240 (x8) health, priests have 150 (x5), and wizards have 120 (x4) -- or something like that. If that's what it is, that could be cool, but it seems like those health amounts would get astronomically high very quickly.

Perhaps water flows up hill in this world. Josh can still win this one, since he's effectively god of the PoE setting.

I remember getting my ass handed to me in that fight back in 1998. Other than my initial learning curve to understand the basics of combat, that was one of the first difficult fights that I remember. Of course, it too can be laughably easy with the right tactics in use. Right tactic being having a lvl 3 wizard and casting Horror at that group. Very intricate lol.. I think I did something like lob an entangle at the party, kill the enemies that resisted and came to attack, and then took out the rest of them from range. Magic missiles (from a wand or innate casting ability) directed at anyone who was casting a spell to interrupt them. At slightly higher levels a fifth level wizard dropping a fireball or a skull trap or two works wonders too.

I remember getting my ass handed to me in that fight back in 1998. Other than my initial learning curve to understand the basics of combat, that was one of the first difficult fights that I remember. Of course, it too can be laughably easy with the right tactics in use.

I thought that was the Tigris river. But I might be getting my worlds mixed up.

I like this suggestion. No idea how feasible it is though. Though they should probably be less potent than the bonuses gained from inns. I can't say I've ever slept as well under a tree than I have in a nice comfy bed.

Oh, right. I can see that I mis-read that. Sorry about that.

We are totally arguing semantics here

That's actually not the attribute of a turn based system that I'm referring to, ironically enough. Turn based systems are by their nature, methodical and ponderous. Combat in PoE is methodical and ponderous. There's your linkage. Turn based systems are system where game flow is partitioned with well-defined and visible parts called turns, nothing more nothing less. Although turn-based systems can be more complex than real-time systems without causing severe issues in game flow as by nature they have more disjointed game flow. You're missing a detail here. Turn based RPGs pause the game while the player considers and enacts his turn for each party member they control. This is the methodical and ponderous part that I referred to. I've played plenty of turn based video games in my day, that pausing component is a fundamental part of the experience. I liken that experience to the longer pause times that I experience also in PoE.

Either way there is a real time component. I don't necessarily see round based system as being "less" of a real time system than a system that doesn't have rounds. To me the lack of rounds just makes for a less "gamey" system. It speeds up, and I know some have challenged themselves to pause less and still do well. I personally see the system as implying that pausing should happen regularly, since you can very effectively manage your per encounter abilities, spell use, positioning, etc. with a good amount of pausing. IWD was one of the major inspirations of PoE, and I see more of an influence from that game with combat than I do with Baldur's Gate, personally.

That's actually not the attribute of a turn based system that I'm referring to, ironically enough. Turn based systems are by their nature, methodical and ponderous. Combat in PoE is methodical and ponderous. There's your linkage.

This is due to the Pause-with-Real-Timetm system that I posted about a day or two ago. Pause with real time is my "cute" way of describing PoE's combat system as a hybrid of real time with pause and turn based. I don't mind it, really. In my mind, PoE is more a turn based style game than it is a real time game, so that helps me to justify the longer than normal pauses that occur. The combat system does take some getting used to, so I expect you'll adapt to it more as you clock in more time.

My thoughts on this topic are evolving, ever so slightly. I have previously stated that I feel that at least more significant fights should grant experience. I'm less concerned about trash mobs. My standing example is the difficult ambush that the player's party is forced to repel. Again, the idea is that this is a truly challenging battle that party members should become more experienced from if they survive. But, I suppose even that scenario could work under the quest only implementation. Party enters a clearing. Party encounters a man in the road who declaims "leave your valuables at your feet... and my men won't kill you." The party refuses to comply and combat ensues. Quest issued: Defeat the bandits in the clearing. Once the final bandit is defeated, quest xp is granted. This concept could be applied to any battle of significance that isn't necessarily tied to a quest. If the party chooses to comply, I guess the could get quest xp for that -- i.e. hopefully they've learned not to be idiots and hand over their gear to a pack of bandits. I will still miss skill based XP, but I suppose that I'll learn to cope.

Variety is nice, and my understanding is that we will be getting more of that as the game gets more polished. A lot of people find the current battle music to be rather jarring, so for a someone like Sensuki, who's spending a large number of hours daily testing the same small section of the game, I could see how he might get tired of hearing a particular theme. More variation will go a long way to improving that, I think.