Lephys

In the WOT, it's almost as if there's only one religion, but a plethora of various denominations. Or... *shrug*, I dare say it's almost like Christianity and Islam. I mean, the Seanchan basically had Artur Hawkwing as their liaison figure between the Creator and the created, with all their own views on how and why to go about life and what the goals in life should be. The Whitecloaks, while obviously pretty corrupted, were still very much founded on the whole "WWJD" aspect of how to live, in regard to the Creator and the Light, etc. Then you had, what, the Way of the Leaf? And the Aiel, with their way of doing things. You even had the creation of the Dragonsworn within the book series, itself, and its development throughout. AND, the Ogier, with their reverence and revolvement around the groves. I know it's not quite all different religions, but, you've gotta also consider that they all lived in a world where certain stuff undeniably happened. Even in the real world, religion and philosophy are a bit intertwined, with many religions/denominations simply being various interpretations of the same general path/goal. I don't really think the WOT was devoid of religion. I just think it was all a bit more intertwined with culture, is all. Which is a little weird, because there weren't like... oodles of various temples and organizations and such. But, the individual cultures were already separated in the same way that organizations are, so it wasn't such a big deal. The Ogier, for example, almost never mingled with people anymore, so it wasn't like they had to say "okay, since we're all just people and live in this country together, we're going to have to distinguish ourselves by saying that we're such-and-such religion, whilst you guys are something-or-another religion, u_u."

Welcome! And that's a pretty great idea.

^ Josh has, on multiple occasions, expressed his far-above-average emphasis on pre-production planning and logistics, before actual production of game systems and components takes place. I have a feeling that, however much time Josh and Co. have spent on this for PoE, it was far more than any of the other Kickstarter titles spent. Thus, it seems to have had, and will continue to have, relatively fewer snags.

^ Not sure if that's been suggested yet or not, specifically, but it's a good basic idea, either way. Another quick thing is, you could easily have just sort of "reinforcement"-type summons (among other types) that are basically an extra batch of hitpoints with an auto-attack, and balance them out by having a sort of global freeze on all casting/ability-use for a duration after summoning that aid. Kind of like an interrupt, or the effect from Grimoire-swapping in combat. This could range anywhere from the entire duration of the summon (if it were a very tough one, etc.), to a very short duration for weaker ones. You could even go with something like a freeze/lock on spells/abilities only above a certain tier/level, based on whatever summons you're maintaining. So, if you wanted to whip out 5 ethereal allies, you'd be limited to just your lowest level spells and abilities. Maybe you dismiss one summoned ally, and you can once again use Level 1 (D&D terminology example) spells again. Dismiss another, and you can use Level 2 spells again. And so on. There's a lot of options allowed there, depending on exactly how each of the summons is designed, but, pretty much any solution involves some kind of investment on the caster's part beyond just having to cast the spell in the first place. I know sometimes such things are "balanced" by a long cast time. "Ohhh, this is a potent summon, so it takes you like 10 seconds to actually get it into battle!". But, I'd much rather be able to summon it relatively quickly, then simply suffer the penalty of having some portion of my capabilities being tied up in the presence of that summoned entity (locked spell tiers, an ability cooldown after summoning, the entity not really doing much unless my summoner is directly controlling it/casting through it, etc.).

I realize games can be designed that way, but, there are plenty of situations that cannot be solved by "stabing things until they stop moving." And/or, there are plenty of outcomes that cannot be achieved via force. You can't exactly stop a war by murdering the commander of one of the armies in the middle of a parlay. I'm pretty sure his forces would charge at that point. "They've just slaughtered the commander! ATTACK, MEN!" You can't kill someone into performing some rite/ritual that only they can perform. You can't restore some divided faction to its former glory by killing half the faction. You can convince someone to give you information, and/or sneakily obtain said information, IF you don't approach the situation with hostility and cause the person to destroy that information. Etc. Everything can't be solved with force/killing.

True that. I wouldn't decide based on some comments about some cake batter that that cake wasn't going to deliver on some cake promise.

While I agree that mere class-based quests probably aren't the way to go, that isn't to say you can't have class play a factor in some mutual exclusion. For example, maybe if you have a few factions that have some kind of exclusion/requirement that basically amounts to "You've got to be a Wizard, Chanter, Druid, Priest, or Cipher, or we won't accept you or let you get past a certain rank/trust level." It doesn't have to be specific to each individual class, but there could be quests and/or quest solutions/branches, the availability of which are triggered by class. Maybe a Fighter can't do something, but several other classes COULD. *shrug* This kind of coincides with my post in the "how will classes differentiate outside of combat?" thread regarding classes easily serving as widespread reputation modifiers and/or knowledge/ability skills. Put simply, you're a Monk? -5 to friendliness from George, whose brother went off to join some group of Monks and was twisted into some sort of weapon (personal trauma that just so happens to cause George to negatively view Monks and their distinct powers/ways), but other factors still allow George to like/trust you. And, as for knowledge/ability skills, maybe you find some artifact that's pulsatingly glowing, and its molding energies in the way that a Wizard does (because it was made by Wizards of old? *shrug*), so a Wizard gets unique interaction options with it, while a Fighter or Ranger would be incapable of doing much at all to it or knowing much about its workings.

I think one of the most important things is that your mere class choice doesn't need to step on anything else's toes in determining dialogue options and reactions, etc. Two really good ways I could see class functioning are: A) As a common reputation/individual-rep (can't remember what that's called in PoE) factor. B) As, essentially, a knowledge skill. For example (regarding point B), "There's a group of people who have been assaulting the populous and stealing things. They're a menace! They're apparently wielders of arcane magic, so we have no way of stopping them!" (PC is a Wizard -- you get some more specific info about the events, then, there's a knowledge:Wizard check, basically. You're a Level 3 Wizard, so you pass it). "My dear mayor, you've been duped. Albeit, cleverly duped. To the untrained eye, it would definitely seem that these folk are wielding arcane magic. But, I assure you, they are frauds. (Explain further)" That sort of thing. Of course, there could always just be an actual knowledge skill, separate from class, for such things. BUT, since class powers are distinct shapings of soul energies, I would think Wizards would generally know the most about how Wizard powers function, etc. Of course, that particular example doesn't really apply to ALL classes, I don't guess, since... well, how do you tell if someone's a Fighter, based solely on lore? They don't exactly wield any distinct powers that I know of. *shrug* Annnnywho...

No apology needed, Josh. We appreciate you hopping in here to say something about it. Take your time, and feel free to poll us for specific info/feedback whenever you need it.

See, now, for counter-spell-type stuff, I'm thinking maybe some kind of Spellcraft/lore skill is in order, that functionally either identifies the spell currently being cast by an enemy caster, or fails to do so (passive skill check). Then, have active-use counter-spells that are limited, and thus a significant choice on what to counter and when. You could have horrible spellcraft/spell lore and still utilize counterspells to simply stop that enemy caster from doing whatever it is he's trying to do, or you can invest in higher spell lore to have a higher chance of identifying any given spell that's being cast (you'd more frequently know what it is the enemy is casting, to better decide whether or not to shut it down), OR you could even just forego those counterspells and invest that "spell ammo" (castings per rest/encounter) on other spells. Another spiffy idea, methinks, would be to simply DISRUPT spells rather than nullify them. What I mean is, if an enemy is casting a fireball, and you can identify it while its being cast (via a skill as above, perhaps), then you can actually sabotage the casting of that spell. You start weaving things INTO the foe's weavings, and cause the spell to simply detonate on the caster and/or behave in a crazy fashion (be aimed in some random other place, or drip fire as it goes, or split into 3 smaller fireballs that fall haphazardly around the battlefield, etc.). Of course, as a caster, you'd be able to easily detect when someone else was screwing with your spell, so, you could stop casting and nothing bad would happen. Not sure on the cost of doing that, though. Maybe similar to D&D's metamagic stuff, it could cost a spell "charge" of one-level above the target spell to disrupt that spell? And if the enemy stops casting, you still lose it? *Shrug* Annnnywho... I just think there are much cleverer ways of allowing significant preperatory and counter-preparation choices to occur in combat, without it just being simply the stacking of passive buff effects before combat starts and/or the dispelling of said buffs.

Now I'm just thinking of a world in which things can't really die because their souls just come back as themselves, but in a different physical vessel, complete with memories and everything. But "dying" is still a huge disadvantage, and/or people can control, to some degree, the cycle of souls to their advantage. So there's still conflict over resources and the like, with a lot of value placed on vessels.

It seems so, though I don't think we have a full list of all of them and their damage types, yet. But... Bolded the part that confirms that, at the very least, war hammers will use multiple damage types. And, since they're specifically using the "best of" as their unique, passive bonus, it seems HIGHLY likely that other weapon types will also have multiple damage types, but will not automatically passively use the "best of" one whenever they oppose DT. Plus, this: Changed it to the high Interrupt. A number of weapons had two "best of" damage types and it felt less distinctive. That "number of weapons" could've been 2, I suppose (war hammers, and, before the change, morning stars), but, again, it seems like at least one other weapon/weapon-type utilizes multiple damage types. I certainly hope we get thrust-vs-slash-type usage options for various weapons, with various damage-type ratings for each weapon (one better at piercing damage because it's designed for thrusting but CAN be slashed, versus another that CAN thrust but is better at slashing, etc). So I'm with you there.

This is why I always make sure to venture third. u_u

That's a good idea! More like credentials than personality/social reaction cues. Of course, you can have those too, but they just wouldn't really be all that numerous. Most people don't care what you do or don't do, but certain people may have something against Ciphers, for example. "Ciphers killed my family!", to go with a cliche example, "So I don't trust those powers and have a horrendously skewed sense of what they are, and I hate them!" But, yeah, you're not just going to be strolling around having everyone react 11 different ways, based on your class or anything. I don't think class really beckons for that level of reactivity anyway. I think what Josh said makes sense. I mean, hopefully there's a bit of class-specific reactivity throughout the game, but, your level of intellect or your strength or Resolve is going to affect a lot more situations than what powers you happen to cultivate. Well, with the exception of maybe Rangers and Wizards, what with their animal companions and familiars traipsing about with them. 8P. That's still more of a spectacle than it is a demand for significant reactionary variation, beyond "Hey, no animals in me tavern!" and such, hehe.

Arboreal dwarves. Boreal dwarves who are also pirates. b'Oréal... Because you're worth it. I know what you're thinking: "Is this guy bor REAL?!" Okay, seriously, I'll stop now.

I want to make a Barbarian with a phobia. Then I'd rename it a "dreadlittle."

I think it's pretty simple: Skimpy armor is ludicrous. Skimpy clothing/garb, totally fine. Basically, it's either armor or it isn't. If it isn't physically protecting anything, don't even pretend it's armor. Even if it's MAGICAL "armor," it's still not using its metal composition and body coverage to offer any protection, so there's no point in it. So, if the game just has some female NPC who wants to wear scant attire (even if it's adorned with metal, even... totes her choice), that's fine. But the game doesn't need to pretend that's her armor. If she's claiming its armor, or saying "this is what all the Warriors of Boobonia wear, for protection!" or something, that's where I call shenanigans. Same for a dude. If Conan the Barbarian wants to run around in a codpiece, then awesome. But it isn't armor. It's a codpiece that he happens to be wearing. The other thing is, regarding the whole "it's sexist!" aspect of this is, it's not really sexist unless it's arbitrarily designed so that all women are just sexual objects. Something doesn't have to be sexist to portray women who willingly flaunt their physiological aesthetic design, and/or wear whatever they want for whatever reason they choose, which females do in real life, even though no development team has designed them to do so and/or no one's objectifying them -- purely of their own free will. Anywho... u_u

You win, Hiro. Your posting skill is so far beyond mine, it's not even funny. I mean whatever you say I do, and I just need to quit trying to pretend you even have the capability to assume things and jump to conclusions that are incorrect. Thanks for setting me straight.

No, I'm not. I'm considering those, too. But, where does that end? A set of pre-buffs on a character is preparation for certain combat factors, right? "Oh look, Blarglefoes. They can poison me, and deal lightning damage. Better cast buffs that will protect against poison and lightning damage." So, preparing by casting those buffs is sort of a counter, in a way, to whatever specific abilities you're dealing with in that combat. So then, we've got a counter to that counter; spell removal/dispelling. HAH! Your buffs are gone! Okay, so what do we do about that? WE COUNTER IT! Everybody attack that mage, so he can't dispel all our buffs!" You use some sort of tactics to prevent that guy from casting, or effectively casting. So what does the enemy do? Try to counter your countering of that counter to your counter. That doesn't make combat very exciting if you ask me. It seems that in PoE there will be a lot of buff-type things that have a very useful effect that isn't really hard-counterable but that only lasts for a short time. I think that's the best way to go. The more permanent you get with multiple effects, the more it becomes a battle of keeping the effect up versus removing it, than an actual battle of... well, battle. Methinks you may have missed my "OR" (understandable, because I had probably too much stuff in parentheses in that post). I was saying that, in the long run, either those buffs aren't really that helpful/necessary, or they end up being necessary. If you're able to pretty easily go without them, then that would fall under the "all that prebuffing isn't really that helpful/necessary" possibility, in which case, why even worry about whether or not we can stack a bunch of spells before combat or not? That's what I'm getting at, mainly. It's not as if they're simply removing the nature of buffing/augmentative spell effects. They're just trying to make it more tactically significant, instead of this sort of sideline thing that ends up only amounting to keeping up the effects/dispelling them in the midst of battle. Someone referenced trap-setting. Well, that's a really good example of preparation, because traps don't just produce enduring effects for the remainder of battle. If someone falls into a camouflaged pit, or steps on a bear trap, that was a one-time effect. Setting that bear trap doesn't boost passive combat factors for the duration of combat. The thing is, many other things already do that: equipment, in-combat spells, etc. If the game wants you to be passively better in a bunch of ways, you shouldn't have any need to actively produce all those effects in a stack before combat.

What it comes down to is that you're arguing against what I don't mean by specifically quoting Fantastic Four's The Thing. You disagree... with what I'm not actually getting at. Hence my explanations. If it was perfectly viable to easily allow your Rogue to hold his own AND still fully take advantage of his heavy-hittingness, then the choice between Fighter and Rogue in that regard would be a no-brainer. I trust that team Obsidian's designs will make sense, so I trust that that will not be the case. A "default" Rogue's hold-his-own factor will be lower than that of many other classes, while the effective heaviness of his hits will be higher than that of many other classes. In relation to the other classes, the Rogue will not be the lord of the rings Troll to your Orc party. Sort of a "the best defense is a good offense" combatant. As long as you can get the hits you need, you can make the most of those hits and produce more damage than others. But, you have to deal more with getting the hits you need than other classes do. I'm simply looking at the distinction of the Rogue class from other classes. I'm not arguing what is and isn't variable within Rogue builds. You seem to be thinking I'm trying to say you can't build a Rogue specifically to be more gung-ho about charging straight at opponents head-on. I'm sure you can, but he's going to be far less heavy-hitting relative to the Rogue that you've designed specifically to hit heavily.

Well, for one thing, decking your Rogue out in full plate and giving him a shield (for example) to bolster AC/defense is taking that much away from his offensive capabilities. So, I'm not saying you can't make a stout Rogue who can hold his own in combat. But, now he's not nearly as much of a heavy-hitter, as he is a hold-his-own-er. Plus, a Rogue hacking away at three foes who are pre-occupied with one-or-more other party members is in no way "taking on" those three foes. The other party member(s) is/are doing the taking-onning, and your Rogue is simply enjoying the freedom to casually pour damage all over their heads and laugh whilst he does so. Which, again, is fine. They work like that, too, and it's a sound strategy. Look, people were worried this newfangled PoE Rogue isn't Rogueish, like we're used to, so I was simply emphasizing the fact that the manner by which this Rogue effects his "heavy-hitting" is via opportunity creation and exploitation, not via "I run at you and smash face with big stick and laugh while you hit me back!" This isn't some weird tank-Rogue who charges into battles and laughs in the face of danger. A Rogue smiting folks in melee combat is going to function differently from a Fighter or a Barbarian doing the same thing. That's all I'm saying/emphasizing. Seems plenty Rogueish to me.

Well, the other thing is... the threshold between what's per-encounter and what's per-rest is sort of determined by, ehh... power. "spell level" in D&D terms. Yeah, once you're LvL 12 or something, for example, you might have all your spells up to LvL 3 or 4 on a per-encounter cycle. But then, when facing LvL 12 foes, in groups, your LvL 3 spells aren't as big of a deal anymore. That, or maybe you even get some certain number of spells per-encounter, AND some certain number of spells per-rest, from the same "tier" of spells. *shrug*. It's possible. The point being that they aren't just arbitrarily throwing in per-encounter stuff. You're not just gonna have the choice between your lightning spell that's per-rest, and your fireball that's per-encounter, for no other reason than to have both types of spells. The choice for a spell/ability to "refresh" more often (per encounter) is a significant design choice. One of the biggest problems I have with D&D (at least, older D&D -- as I think they've sort of remedied this in newer versions? *shrug*) is that, as a caster, you've got a pretty slim bag of tricks until you get on up there in levels. Seriously... a Level 1 Wizard with 5 spells per day? (because in PnP D&D, you can't just rest every 3 seconds to refresh them). Anywho, I think the per-encounter thing is going to work out fine. There's nothing requiring it to somehow enter the MMO-level of ability spam. It's not like an ability that goes onto an encounter refresh is somehow unlimited to use. You could have as little as a single use of that spell, per encounter. That's hardly MMO-style. Like Josh said, that's a significant choice in between "oh crap, I can only use this X times before going to some rest location again, so this has got to get me through a lot of encounters" and "Oh, I can use this all the time, whenever."

Yes, just like The Thing from the Fantastic Four only runs in to clobber baddies when several other party members are supporting him in this endeavor, as opposed to alone... oh wait. I get that you'll have a party, and you'll have support. The point is, you won't just go "Oh hey, 3 dudes with swords? BRING IT ON, 'CAUSE I HIT REALLY HARD!" Your Rogue isn't about to just take on some foes directly. Sure, he's a good fighter, but it's just a different, wily type of fighting specialization. As opposed to, say, a Barbarian, or a Fighter. Basically, I'm just pointing out that "heavy-hitter" isn't so much describing the manner in which they hit, as it is describing the functional role they're tailored for in party-based combat.

I'm not convinced they're going to find that Diamond Staff with that level of effort put into their searches unless the Diamond Staff had arms and legs and runs or climbs past them. "Oh, pff... guys! Nevermind! I've been holding it this whole time! Silly me!"

Or the weather... A metal bikini? In the frozen tundra?! You must be ele-MENTAL!