Lephys

My understanding of the classes is that they are designed with specific roles in mind (IE: Rogues and Rangers are the Heavy Hitters, Mage and Druid are for AoE.) Sure you can make them something else but they will never reach their full potential as a class if you do. I prefer my mages to be "glass cannons" that have high damages vs. both single and multi-targets but cant stand up to attack very well. This is most likely a case of me being stuck in the past. I think it may have been interesting to offer each class a offensive, or defensive, or hybrid build. I could very well be wrong, but, I think you'll easily be able to make a nuker mage. (Also, for what it's worth, there's nothing wrong with your desire to have that style of "glass cannon" mage. It's a perfectly valid desire, and does not mean you're stuck in the past. I prefer that general aspect of magery, as well.) Continuing with the possibility of being wrong, I gather that the whole roles thing deals more with a comparison of class potentials than with just straight-up class functions. In other words, if you make a mage, your given mage isn't just automatically 75% more AoE than any other character who isn't a mage. I think he just gets to have, if he so chooses, significantly greater AoE capabilities (access to more AoE spells/abilities and greater AoE damage, etc.) than any other class would. So, if you made, say, a Ranger, and just made him the absolute most AoE Ranger you could, THEN you made a Wizard (mage) and did the same thing, the Ranger's sheer AoE capabilities would pale in comparison to the Wizard's. Out of all the aspects of class ability (general fields in which all classes can be effective), the Wizard gets the most AoE potential. I don't think it means they don't get any other-stuff potential (like nukes, for example). They just get a bit less nuke potential than AoE potential. So, kind of the reverse of the Ranger-Wizard example above, if you made a character of each class, and tried to make both of them the highest single-target damagers you could (you'd have your nuke wizard, and a "nuker" Ranger -- I know that doesn't quite apply, but... you get the idea), the Ranger would out-single-target-damage you. But, your Wizard could still out-single-target-damage lots of other Rangers who weren't built specifically to maximize their single-target damage capabilities. I'm actually a bit concerned, as well. It's more the principle of the thing, for me. If you get a little starter spell called PewPew, and it does 5 damage. Then, you play 20 hours into the game, and most of the enemies have 5+ armor, and/or are simply threatening enough that doing 5 damage at a time is nowhere near an efficient enough use of your time to win the fight before they kill you, then it doesn't really do you any good that that PewPew spell has worked its way down from per-rest, to per-encounter, to at-will, and that you can cast it infinite times. By the time you've cast it 20 times, those late-game foes have wiped the floor with your whole party, and your Wizard's successfully deducted 10% of their health. For that reason, I'd like to at least see minor scaling on the spells. It always irks me in games when you're just forced to abandon old spells. "You don't need firebolt anymore. You have fireBALL! 8D!" Yeah, but they're not the same spell. Why can't I make a more-powerful-but-still-less-powerful-than-other-spells fireBOLT? I don't know. And a Fighter doesn't have this problem, does he? I mean, you're gonna get +something to your weapon's effectiveness as you progress, right? Even if it comes from your equipment stats. Otherwise, there's no point in swinging a weapon at all later in the game. Thus, if you use Power Strike or something, that's still you swinging a sword, PLUS the additional affects of power strike. *Shrug*

Might a present a comparison? Imagine if you had to have something in your inventory in order to swing your sword, as a typical melee Fighter. You've decided "My character is going to be a swordsman." But, you need sword "ammo." You're just going to buy the crap out of it, right? Because, what good is the super-great micromanagement aspect of accounting for all that sword ammo if you are in a battle and run out of sword ammo and cannot swing your sword? Forget about the 30+ abilities/attacks you're going to be able to perform at some point throughout the game... you can't even make a basic attack, because your sword's out of ammo. Thus, whereas in real life that's super significant, in the game, it isn't really anymore. It's the same with a bow. You can run out of arrows, sure, but then, by default, the nature of the game's design mandates that it make your ammo so readily available that it's not even feasible that you'd ever NOT buy enough to always have some ammo at your disposal. Why? Because if your character is a bow-user, first and foremost, and all your combat effectiveness revolves around a bow, then it's got to be a feasible weapon to use, at all times. Well... that could be misconstrued. Not literally every second, ever, or being put to sleep or petrified or something would warrant a problem with the bow. Anywho, it pretty much just becomes a tax/meaningless ritual, buying basic arrows. Yes, any kind of special arrows whatsoever should probably be limited and managed. But the basic functioning capability of your weapon relies upon having a non-zero amount of ammunition. If you ever DO run out of arrows, you're just going to go back to town and buy some more. So, in the context of the game's design, it's rather meaningless when it comes down to it. Sure, in some other game that's designed around more simulationist aspects, it could be great. In a survival game, for example, THREE basic arrows would be GOLD! And not having them wouldn't be readily remedied. But, in a game like PoE, basic ammo for your weapon is just oil in the machine. In a survival-type game, the machine still works just as well when you're OUT of ammo, because that's a significant part of the game. But in PoE, the machine just runs slower and overheats until you get more oil. The lack of function for your primary weapon positively supports nothing in the design.

But a rolling stat catches no moss. You don't want mossy stats, do you? o_o

mindx2... let me put it this way: Do you trust Obsidian to care about having a nice boxed-copy product? If so, then trust them to not decide "yeah sure, Paradox... just whatever you wanna do with a box. If it's technically boxed in some way, then we don't really care what it looks like." Then, trust Obsidian to have intelligently chosen Paradox partly due to the fact that they actually follow their partners' wishes (have in the past and therefore are reputable). THEN, trust Paradox to not have built up a solid reputation for providing quality marketing/distribution service, only to suddenly give Obsidian the finger and say "to HELL with your wishes on the quality of the boxed copies!" See, I know I'm weird, but that's how my brain works whenever a concern arises. There are things that could just possibly happen, in isolation, and then there are the probabilities that remain after you apply all the relevant factors of reality and the given situation. Paradox could do a horrible job of what they've been tasked with, but then, what are the actual odds of that, and what factors actually support that potentiality?

Fix? Fix suggests that it was something broken. It wasn't. Obviously they didn't want the sequel out cavorting with other games and having a bunch of puppies.

True enough. I was more trying to speak to the fact that people pretty much jump to the conclusion that hiring someone to publish your stuff automatically means they own you, hence the panic welling up in response to the announcement of this partnership. I mean, if Obsidian just said "Paradox is now our publisher," and that's it, then yeah, I'd understand people saying "Okay, so... I'm curious... do the specifics of that agreement allow them any creative license with the project?". But, Obsidian's been very specific, and yet still people come in here, don't even read all the stuff Obsidian took the time to spell out for everyone, and just go "So wait, the game's Call of Duty now?!" 8P I just wish people would take the time to save everyone (themselves included) the trouble, and observe the information available before A) requesting information that's already available and B) freaking the hell out because of assumptions. I like for people who don't know things to then know those things. It's pleasant. I just wish it could happen in a smoother fashion.

Well, they sort of are, aren't they? I'm not sure that having a say in the design of a thing is actually an inherent part of the process of publishing. It's just very often factored into the deal. I mean, from dictionary.com: "pub·lish [puhb-lish] verb (used with object) 1. to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public." Doesn't say anything about designing or altering in any way. If you design a flyer, then a friend agrees to print it for you (maybe you don't have a printer at home) and hand out the copies, he's technically your publisher.

Haha. Well, what helps my mind is that, what the Wizard does with a Grimoire is at least so precise/complicated/particular that only a very skilled/trained/learned Wizard can do it. Or, to put it another way, if electricity is magic, and Wizards are engineers, and they build electronic devices (grimoires), then they don't just have a little switch on them that anyone with a thumb can flick and launch spells out of them, ya know? So, the magic itself might not be innate, but... something about them is "innate" (even if it's developed/trained) such that only they can utilize the "machine" they've made to use as a conduit to generate spell effects. *shrug* I dunno if that made sense. Maybe too much metaphor. I should go easy on the metaphor. Maybe I'll dial it down to meta-three next time.

Erm... the worst thing someone in charge of marketing can do is give everyone a horrible impression of your game and/or flat-out lie about its design. The people who make commercials for Ford don't get to tell Ford engineers how to design their vehicles and products. "Nebulous term like marketing," he says... Silly goose.

A) You're not accomplishing anything by arguing semantics. You're basically just saying "I don't even care what you mean, as long as you're technically using the wrong word," which is hardly productive. B) You're not even doing it right. You just picked an overly specific meaning of "potentialities" and decided that, since it works, mine doesn't. The next word out of my mouth has the POTENTIAL to be any word I can form with my vocal cords. It could be "blue," or it could be "Steve," etc. However, the next word out of my mouth can only be ONE of however many potential options. Much like a spell. Firebolt. It shoots a firebolt, and deals some value of damage. It can't have a range of 30, AND a range of 70, shoot only a single electric bolt AND shoot only a single firebolt, have a cast time of 1 second AND have a cast time of 9 seconds. It doesn't have any set values until I code it into the game and say "this is Firebolt." Unless I code in 7 different spells, all called "Firebolt," and say "These are all Firebolt." You comprehend this, yes? Tell me what word you want me to use for that, and we'll all agree I'm a big idiot who can't think up the perfect words to use to express ideas, and that the 17 paragraphs I type to elaborate on a concept I'm trying to convey never make up for the fact that I didn't use that ONE word that was kind of vague because you maybe thought of a different specific meaning for it. Those aren't the same spell. If they were, then all movie sequels would just be different "versions" of the same movie. By definition of the word "version," those could all be called different versions of monster-summoning (type) spells. But they are not different versions of one, unary, singular, solitary spell. One is either Monster Summoning IV, or it is not. This is why I elaborate on things, instead of just tossing out the word "versions" and calling it a day. You should try utilizing context sometime to rule out all the potential specific meanings of a word that's been used. It works wonders. There, are we done with SemanticsFest 2K14 now? If you want, I'll pretend both you and Hiro DIDN'T just misunderstand the crap out of me and prompt a bunch of "multiple versions of a spell" argument that doesn't even have any significance to the actual topic of pre-buffing and the effects of its elimination versus its inclusion. If it makes you guys feel better. I couldn't care less. I don't think any less of either of you for misunderstanding. To err is human. Back to the actual topic we were on, here's the thing... What's the difference between these?: A) You do 5 damage, but you pre-buff yourself, before combat, so that you now do 8 damage. Your foe has 50 health, but he pre-buffs himself to have 60 health (because, as we said, why shouldn't enemies prepare for combat if we, the players, do?). Now you fight. B) You just do 8 damage, and your enemy has 60 health. Now you fight. I'll tell you what the difference is. In A, you happened to cast some spells. In B, you didn't. (Anticipated response) "But casting those spells or not-casting them changes the playing field at the start of combat in different ways, depending on what you cast and don't, and adds in a whole new aspect to the active portion of combat!" Nope. Sorry. It's an illusion. What's the difference between dispelling that +5 armor buff that's making your foe's armor value 10 instead of 5 -- so that your 10-damage attack can actually do 5 damage to them insted of none -- and simply debuffing them for -5 armor, OR simply buffing yourself for +5 damage? The difference, again, is just that you happened to cast some spells beforehand when you pre-buffed. Combat still plays out the same way. Based on whatever factors are in place, you have so many options to tackle them. In fact, pre-buffing can potentially limit your options. Those fire elementals do nothing but fire damage, so you see them, slap a bunch of fire resistance on your peeps, then jump into the fray? Awesome. What option do the fire elementals have BUT to strip away your resistance? Their options are "don't be effective," or "strip away that resistance and actually be effective." The more different things you can render ineffective before combat even starts, the fewer options there are but "dispel the crap out of all of them." Whereas, without pre-buffing, any number of things could be feasible: stop them from casting a spell, buff your party against some specific thing, debuff the enemy, focus-fire on something to kill it quickly and take it out of the equation, etc. Sure, you can protect yourself from fire AFTER combat has started, but you've got to actively close that door while your actions and their timing/order actually counts, and not just conveniently have it closed when the fighting starts. Not to mention that there are already permanent traits/factors that serve the same function. If you're wearing plate armor, and the enemies are using weapons that are weak against plate, then you've already got them at a passive disadvantage. Why do you need to ALSO be able to boost your armor, and your attack, and be immune to sleep effects (which is one of the things they COULD effectively use on you), and be immune to poison (something they were gonna use to get around that whole "our weapons already suck against your armor" thing, but now they can't), etc.? Why is being able to dictate so many factors at the moment of combat's beginning necessary, or in any way superior to simply dealing with the factors at-play at the start of combat?

The feeling is mutual. Because a spell isn't a spell until it's coded into the game by a developer. They don't just go dig them up, you know. "Hey guys! I found a Fire Protection spell! Oh, it's 1 minute long. Better build a game around that duration, u_u" What I'm "going on about" are different potentialities for the "same" spell. It's kind of what you do when you're designing a spell. Obsidian are desigining spells. New, original IP spells. Is there some restriction in programming I should know about? o_o

Yeah, when you first paid, it was sort of like you bought a digital giftcard to Pillars of Eternity 'R' Us. Via the pledge management portal, you sort of officially assign that "store credit" towards your specific tier items and add-ons. It sort of locks it in and confirms the specifics of your order.

... of game-backer surveys and what-NOT. *shrug*. Forced. I know. 'Twas the best I could do.

Pish posh. Everyone knows the mark of a scientist is a clipboard. u_u Great, so we should be forced to look ridiculous because all the cool kids are doing it?

Some kind of intuitive icons or something would be nice, to show (near each character portrait or something) whether or not that character is performing a move action, performing an attack, casting a spell or using an ability, or idle. So that when you pause (or don't) to assign orders to your party, you'll know when you're going to interrupt what they're already doing and when you aren't. Sometimes you can't tell if someone's technically started casting a spell (if issuing a different order at this point is going to actually cancel a spell or just change what the character's about to do before the game actually considers the spell casting having begun) just by looking. *shrug* I'm also curious how that works. If you start casting a 3-second-cast-time spell, and something bad happens on the battlefield, so you pause to issue reactionary orders, do you lose that spell "ammo" (one of your spells per rest/encounter)? Or is it only after you've successfully cast it? The latter would be nice.

How so? Duh... I mean, if you hire a caterer for a party, instead of just cooking all the food yourself, the caterer TAKES OVER YOUR PARTY! They scribble out your guest list, they renovate your house... They like, OWN you. And you pay them to do it! It's insane! How dare Obsidian hire someone to perform a bunch of completely-unrelated-to-development-or-design tasks! Obviously the development and design are ruined. FOR SOOTH! *faints*

... God isn't your agent? o_O

On the topic of micromanagement, I still say that having John Madden-esque tele-writer-style control over pathing commands would be amazing. Want someone to retreat, but in a certain way? Just click-and-drag draw the path you want them to take. Takes like 2 seconds. Then unpause, and they do it. The smooth drawn line could just be converted into waypoints, in terms of the actual movement command.

Also, a very important question: If we cast Dimensional Shift five times in a row, does the universe prompt us to activate Dimensional Sticky Keys?

LOLCANO! I feel you. I prefer the "I actually take energy/mana into myself and shape it into something else before releasing it" as well. And yeah, the Wheel of Time reference is great. The grimoire right now acts basically just like a ter'angreal; it gathers and manipulates the energy to do what it does (or, rather, each spell in the tome is like a separate ter'angreal. It's like a ter'angreal multi-tool, haha). But, alas, it seems we won't really see any angreal or sa'angreal-type devices that simply deal with energy being gathered by/into the user himself. Whereas, in contrast to the Wizard, the Druid actually does stuff like that. The innateness of the power/ability is my favorite. BUT, I'm still okay with the way Wizard's work. It's kinda cool, in its own way. 8P Yeah, if you haven't checked out Full Metal Alchemist, it's pretty good. There's also, specifically, "Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood." As far as I can tell, it's almost like a re-do (both series' cover the "same" story, but the overall story's a bit different in each), and apparently it's a lot closer to the original manga story than just-plain "Full Metal Alchemist." It's pretty good, though. They practice alchemy, which is LIKE magic (to us), but to them it's just science. But, the magical effect, itself, is just sort of a part of the natural world in their world; it's no different from certain temperatures producing fire, or chemicals mixing to make other substances. Formulas and symbols have the ability to alchemize stuff into different forms. So, they control this process, but they don't actually innately do anything. Annnnyway... I digress. 8P

BAdler... I just have to say, you possess patience of a legendary caliber. If patience is a virtue, then you, sir, are a virtue-oso. (Seriously, though... just want to toss some love your way for handling this question barrage so well.)

Yeah, I just got to watch the video (finally made it home from work). I kinda just took Mr. Magniloquent's word on it, since I'm usually the one who misses stuff (or is at least much slower to get to all the specific infos presented, a la my avatar). I missed that last bit of text in the update about Druids. I think I was so excited, my brain just sorta skimmed it, then dumped it before actually storing it. Maybe it was just too worried about the double "wands" typo. Silly brain... 8P No worries. Mistakes happen. Good news is good news, 8D

Specifically stated interrogatively, sure. I'm not entirely sure you understand the function of a question mark. False. Protection from Fire does not denote the extent of the protection. It could be .0001% damage reduction from fire, or 100%. It could simply prevent you from receiving some kind of Burning status ailment (and taking damage over time, perhaps), or it could shorten the duration of such an effect. Or any combination of the above. You see, PoE isn't limited to the exact same spells and effects as D&D or any other ruleset. Which is exactly why I approach topics like this in a raw form, looking at the general function of buffs, rather than having an "ignorantly narrow view" of them. When making an RPG, like PoE, and deciding "I want to put a buff in this game that protects people from fire." Well, now I've got to come up with all the factors. If I want the buff to last for like 10 fights, then it makes more sense for me to make the effect weaker. Otherwise, why even pretend fire's a hazard if the player can conveniently stave it off for 72-hours at a time? Now, if I want the buff to last for 10 seconds, then it makes sense for me to make the effect quite strong. Why would someone bother with the timing and execution of a 10-second Fire Protection buff if it grants +5% damage reduction to fire? I'm not sure how that's nonsensical. I can't make both of those, and neither is inherently less valid of a choice than the other. Simply put, the player can do significantly different things with a 10-second IMMUNITY to fire than he can with a 10-minute 10% reduction to fire damage. Furthermore, when the general approach to buff effects favors the short-term, more-potent style, it just makes a lot more sense that combat pre-buffing isn't going to really be a big deal, since you're going to need the buffs to be in-effect when you're actually taking the hits and such, as opposed to at the "start of combat" when both sides start charging at one another and nocking their arrows. Tactics are all about what you do in the midst of battle... how you adjust. Not "They're using arrows. We should probably bring shields." That's not a tactic. It's a strategy.

I tried to understand, but I don't even get what it is I'm supposed to be understanding. Stun said this: False. If it's false that you don't want the same buff to have an in-combat version, then it's true that you want each buff to have an in-combat version. As distinct from some other version that doesn't have "in-combat" as a descriptor. Thus, two versions. Which is why I asked if that's what Stun meant. Then you jump in, trying to clarify to me the folly of having two versions. I'm well aware of my own point, but I have no idea what yours is. My best guess is that you weren't clear on the context of what I was saying? *shrug* Even if you didn't know it, you echoed my very point.

I really like the style of the spell designs. You've got your basic nukes and such, but most of the spells listed are not only interesting, but also provide you with multiple functions in the same spell, not all of which need to be utilized to the maximum in any given situation. As for Blast... I think it'll be pretty versatile. I think the idea is to give Wizards the availability of a sort of go-to weapon, instead of leaving them dead-in-the-water like in D&D ("Oh, you're out of spells? You're just a feeble human with horrible weapon skill!"). Various wands can still have all kinds of differing attacks and damage types, and some can even alter the range of the Blast (it's just a potential thing. I'm not saying they will in some confirmed capacity or anything). I take it other people can use rods, wands, and scepters, too, but do not get to take advantage of the Blast effect. So, I dunno. It just doesn't rub me as particularly negative in any way right now. The Druid only getting one form is a bit sad... BUT, it's really not much different from a magic school/discipline specialization/restriction in a lot of other games. It's very similar. I mean, zooming out and looking at just an RPG in general, yeah, I'd like to see a Druid take on different forms to tackle different scenarios, etc. BUT, if it's done well, I can't say I mind the restriction to a single one. It's kind of like a sub-class option. And, yeah, hopefully it has roleplay implications. I want to see a choice as permanent and integral to your character as that affect a decent bit of things throughout the game, in a way distinct from a choice of a different form (or a non-Druid).