curryinahurry

^ that is a good point, but we will have to see if equipment changes reinforce different builds/ role options (as I hope), or they provide a slightly different way for a class to fulfill its developer sanctioned role in combat. Many people might be happy with their gun toting Cipher delivering massive damage in its stiker role. But what if the party controller goes down, will that same Cipher be able to fill the gap as controller as the person who created him/her intended when they were coming up with the character concept? That is my point about expectation and reactivity. Now if your gun toting cipher can go from Striker to controller, while your plate wearing cipher can go from Striker to support as required, that would be the best of all worlds.

^ Your example comes down to re-activity, which I agree will be a major test for this system. But the other side is player expectation, and we'll have to see how far the game will will bend to allow us to play characters the way we want; within reason, of course.

If you have a quote for this, please share. I got a very different impression and would love to be wrong. I don't have a quote but my impression is that classes will be flexible within their class roles (though, not necessarily different from their class roles). A Wizard in robes versus a Wizard in heavy plate armor for instance. You could probably specialize your Wizard to become a swordsman even, but it's not going to be the best kind of swordsman. Both are Wizards, but they are just different kinds of Wizards with different specializations. A Dual-Wielding Fighter in Medium Armor might be a great single-target DPS killer, whilst a Sword & Shield Fighter is a crowd-control tank. Both are Fighters, but just different types of Fighters. This is mostly my impression of what Obsidian has said, but there's also a hint of wishful thinking. I agree with you, but I think it depends on how many class abilities are baked-in to the class. Some classes will likely be more flexible than others; mage, thief, cipher, druid all look to be fairly flexible from what we've seen. Ranger, monk, paladin, seem to be less flexible as of right now. Either way, I think classes are going to be optimized for the roles; that's part of the Obsidian "no bad builds" objective. How good they can become at other roles is what concerns me. Even if your example fighter can't become as good a striker as a well optimized rogue or ranger, it should still be a heavy damage dealer for this system to be successful for what I want out of my gaming experience.

If you have a quote for this, please share. I got a very different impression and would love to be wrong.

^ Ah, interesting...thanks for the quote. That's a very western attitude towards the whole issue of souls and memories, but I guess that is what we should expect.

From the Wiki: Skein steel – equal to Durgan Steel in quality. Skein steel is made by controlling heat precisely, but it uses animancy to draw a soul’s memories out of a vessel (typically a living body) toward a copper surface, igniting the memories to produce the flame. The contraptions used to control this process allow the smith to adjust the speed of the unraveling and the heat of the flame. Because skein steel requires a steady, continuous flame, it specifically needs a living (preferably old) subject. Igniting is different from burning away, but either way, not inherently evil. Depends on how this is seen within the PoE game world.

^ This discussion has been had over and over. Let's just say I respectfully disagree with your assertions and leave it at that.

You're right of course, but I think one thing most people aren't considering is just how limiting a factor Class Combat Roles are going to be in shaping build possibilities. If we take a fighter as an example: Fighters are serving the role of 'defenders' as one of the four possible roles (let's forget the marketing language for now) available in combat; the other 3 being, striker, controller, leader (support). As has been said before, this is heavily influenced by D&D 4e (which I know little about). The fighters baked-in class features and class abilities reinforce this role; which is primarily to engage and prevent enemy penetration into the back line of the party. It is not necessarily to do lots of damage (striker), command the field of combat (controller) or buff/heal teammates (support). It may be possible, through the allocation of attributes and selection of talents, to make the fighter a decent striker. It may be possible to make the fighter, and serviceable controller in dire circumstances, or under the right conditions. It will likely be impossible to make him/her a buffer, healer. Therefore, no matter what choices we make for our attributes and talents, the baked-in class abilities make our fighter a defender; and possible decent at other stuff. That, I think, is a lot of how Obsidian is trying to idiot-proof PoE and prevent bad builds.

^ Was it said to be evil? It may not be considered to be evil in some societies. It might be considered a great honor for, let's say an aged Glanfathan warrior to have his soul drawn into a sword or armor to continue to serve his people.

Pros: Faction & local reputation system - by far the best thing Obsidian is doing in this game Artwork & Isometric 2d presentation Worldbuilding seems consistent and fairly logical Attributes allowing for lots of options in builds - we will have to test this Stronghold system and the way its being woven into the game structure - promises to be better than Crossroads Keep and other precedents Cons: Combat Class Roles - It smacks of corporate marketing speak (calling support classes the, "leaders of the band", really?) and I fear it may hinder any real customization and pushing classes into grey areas that can be fun. The Rogue - A fairly unimaginative re-thinking (in general I'm not that happy with the way many of the core classes have been re-thought, I would have expected better from Obsidian) The Ranger - Animal companion as mandatory feature is atrocious. The ranger if a class I've enjoyed playing in previous D&D titles, not for their power but for their versatility. All gone in this version. UI - I'm not against a minimalist UI in general, but we were promised something in the tradition of IE games and I think to 99% (even if they're not in favor of such a thing) of backers, that means a U-shaped decorative frame, and not a simplification of IWD 2. No Overland Travel - would have been great with the scripted scenes, but maybe it was too much/ not in the spirit of the IE games.

Yeah, it's a percentage, right? All the stat bonuses/modifiers are, methinks. So, if there are other ways of upping your damage, maybe that would, as you say, synergize with that? I mean, I don't expect to double damage with a Might modifier or anything, but you'd think there should at least be circumstances under which giving your character 18 (or whatever the max is at character creation) Might instead of spending those points on another stat would be a significant choice. Seems like a poleaxe is probably a pretty damaging weapon (numbers wise), even if it's not the highest-damage weapon there is. So, if 4 points is all we're ever going to get from average to max Might, that seems a little... lackluster? Also, it seems like the very nature of the tactical combat would lend itself more to "under such-and-such circumstances, your Might modifier produces much more useful effects than under other circumstances," instead of just "you get this percentage of flat damage boost, and maybe some carry weight, and that's it." I mean, I guess it'll affect all manner of non-combat happenings (scripted interactions/stat checks). But... still. One thing that could really relegate Might to lower on the attributes ladder is what weapons wind up using Penetration as a value to bypass DT. If those are mostly finesse weapons, then there is still value in Might for front-liners and support classes. But if weapons like Longswords start getting assigned penetration values, then they are really going to have to beef up Might with talents or face having it become a secondary attribute.

I think you're spot on. Using Josh Sawyer's PoleAxe example in the 81 thread, the difference in damage between a might of 10 and 18 would be about 4 points per attack on average. That is significant, but not massively so. If high Might has synergies with certain Talents (bypassing damage thresholds or bigger crits) or allows for faster recover using heavier weapons/ gear, then it would jump up to the top of the heap, but right now, it may only be the 4th stat for a lot of fighter builds.

Fighter seems like it will be pretty much what has been described, reliable. I also think the class needs some active use abilities to not be dull. As someone who always plays a fighter in their first play-through of games, I found one of the greatest flaws in the IE games that I spent all my time managing every other character in my party. The only time I would go back to my fighter was when a potion needed chugging or to move on to another target... not wonderful. These active use abilities need not be massive damage dealers, but more along the lines of shield bash, trip, called shot, bleeding wound, etc. I know that knockdown will be in the game, so I have some hope for these types of active use abilities; just hope to get more information on them soon. Also, will fighters have a threat zone (circle) for defender mode, or will we mark targets? I would prefer a threat circle that would trigger an attack of opportunity on any enemy trying to rush past the fighter (even if not actively engaged). Barbarians sound like they will be a blast to play...hope we get an NPC barbarian so I can try them out in game.

From what we know, only one skill can be maxed out per character. The issue of concern has been more related to whether, within a party, all skills can be maxed out and how they will be viewed within the scripted scenes. Will these scenes rely on the PC, party average or each character depending on the situation. I would agree with your argument if every skill has and impact in combat. If that is the case, then synergies with attributes could have real impact in all situations. If skills are mostly non-combat related (as they seem to be), why would you want your low dex, high int rogue to take a point in lore at a given level over one in stealth (which will help make up a potential deficiency in combat). Remember, fewer skills likely means fewer skill points. We don't know how many skill points we get per level, but I remember someone saying we would likely only be able to max one skill by the end of the game. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate with this, and once we have more information, it might be fine, but I'm not really seeing any advantage in terms of class viability if most skills are non-combat related. Certainly, its less work for Obsidian. Which is reasonable, but leads to most skills being passive attributes in scripted sequences (like pick-pocketing and tracking) and gives us less authorship in the game world.

I think I was unclear in my wording on mages and crafting; I meant lore skill may be necessary not would be necessary. Also, lore is a skill separate from intellect, so while their will be synergy, you would forego another skill to pump lore. Maybe you're right about the possibilities and I'm being a bit too pessimistic, but the moment they started with 'roles' I started to get wary, and the limited skills isn't changing my mind. BTW, it's impossible to idiot-proof a product; so all of these decisions about streamlining must be weighed at the tipping point with fun; and specifically where does the fun of customization cross the line into the frustration of bewildering complexity.

It is difficult and time consuming to make RPG that don't abstractions that aren't in odds with real world examples. PoE has only five skills for two main reasons, first it focus isn't in simulation, but in exploration, tactical party based combat and story telling, and secondly they wanted all skills to be useful for every character, which becomes that much harder to do more skills you add. I'm not concerned with simulationist aspects of gameplay; I'm concerned about options in exploring character builds, transparency of rules, and symmetry of design. Specifically, I expect Obsidian to keep its promise of allowing us to pursue unconventional builds. The whole aspect of 'party roles' already rubs me the wrong way. Coupled now with this streamlined skill system, and begin to wonder how far we are going to be allowed to stray off the path. Maybe it will be fine, I'm not making any accusations, but I am concerned. I'm not so sure. It depends on how many skill points we get and what is possible within the system realistically. A high dex + athletics mage sounds plausible, but if it comes at the cost of lore & int that are needed for crafting and a bunch of other magely pursuits, then what would be the value? Also, if scripted scenes are done on a party average or highest number like Mor suggests, then there is absolutely no point in building a mage that way. Again, I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'm going to be concerned until we get more information.

Yeah, that was convenient on my part, but the point remains. Let's look at tracking as an example; is that now a talent, class ability, or part of the Survival skill set? If it is a Talent, will that be a general ability, or class specific? If it is part of Survival, it will be lumped in with healing, which seems odd. maybe it will be a subset of perception and class, but it seems fairly clunky and exclusionary in such an implementation.

PoE will have a guaranteed expansion and will hopefully be the beginning of a series. The expansion will likely build on the original game and use the same characters, but we don't know if the next installment might continue or protagonists' adventures, or start with new characters in a different part of the continent/ world. Also, we don't know at what level our characters will be considered 'legendary' or 'epic'. D&D had a fairly steep power curve for its classes (especially casters) and was geared towards pen and paper gameplay. PoE is geared towards the computer, and will likely have a shallower power curve than D&D. This might mean that level 20 becomes 'high level' and level 30 or 40 becomes 'legendary' or 'epic'.

^ I think they are going to be relying on abilities, and possibly talents, for a lot of the scripted sequences and recipe requirements. It might work ok, but 5 skills seems a bit chunky and will likely lead to some fairly odd shoe-horning (like your athletics thievery example).

^ Right, that's sort of my point. BG2 had over 300 areas, but a lot were quite small; likely a limitation of the technology. Considering the anticipated size of PoE, I'm a bit concerned about pacing. I tend to feel most of the newer crpgs tend to level too fast, but playing through IWD, with a party having just reached 9th level, I'm being reminded that in the IE games the opposite becomes a bit of an issue after a certain point. Of course Sabotin's point about the inherent issue in D&D is a valid one, but I'm curious to know, now that the game is in beta, if 6 to 10 hours per level feels satisfactory or a bit too slow.

Certainly that will help. But PoE has been stated to be 'considerably larger than Baldur's Gate' which was 40 to 60 hour game not including TotSC. Even with a gentler power curve, we're looking at any where between 6 and 10 hours at each level depending on gameplay style. It might not be a big deal in-game as there are plenty of other things to do, but one of the core elements of CRPG's is character progression and the sense getting more competent/powerful. I'm personally interested if the folks at Obsidian have found the rate of levelling to be satisfying in this regard, or that it might need the insertion of the occasional perk or reward (beyond loot) for pacing purposes. This might be included in the form of books, training opportunities, quests related to the stronghold, or special faction side quests.

Josh, I have a question for you, I'm replaying IWD + Expansions now (very slowly), and I'm thinking that I will finish with my party somewhere around 14th level. PoE is supposed to take our party to 12th, if we're completionist; that is my understanding from what I've read. Also, in one of the E3 interviews, I think you mentioned that there would be 140 maps in this game vs 80 some-odd in IWD. Between this, and the stated size of the game content as being, "larger than BG1", I'm wondering about how pacing will be handled with regards to character progression. I think most of us are cool with the idea of slower levelling, but too slow could begin to feel like grinding or mining for XP. I wonder if you folks are implementing any mechanics, perks, content, etc. to make our characters feel like they are progressing; even if it is in small increments.

As much as I would appreciate seeing game-play footage, I'm personally much more interested in the Beta and getting a hand's on feel for the game. With regards to in-game video, I'm mostly interested in how the UI will function and how combat will work, especially with the integration of spell effects and having screen legibility. Many of the other important issues in gameplay will be impossible to truly evaluate without actually playing the game.

Other developers do that as well. And yes i want transparency. I want something to get excited about. Something I feel good about to have backed. And sadly I really do not get it with this game and company. Changing skills, numbers or mechanics do not mean anything to me as long I can not see them in a video or by playing it. So all the stuff eople discuss about is hypothetical which have no meaning as long you can not see it integrated in a game. Talking to people is fine. Even Bioware does this. The problem is showing the things you change and integrate into a game. A visual feedback. Again go and watch all these divinity logs and go to their forums. In their forums they do at least the same as here maybe even more. But the huge difference is the visual approach. Same goes for Wasteland. Didn't back those games and could care less how they've been developed. Again, as others have said, every company has its own approach to game development and interacting with its backers. If a game is set up or has enough assets in place to work in the manner you seem to find favorable, that's great for you, but it's unlikely that Obsidian or any other game developer is going to change its approach to mollify your bleating. There has been both interactivity and a structured approach by Obsdiian in effort to engage its backers, not just, "talking to people." If 79 updates and thousands of forum posts can't get that point across, then I really don't believe your complaining is about transparency but rather access and preferential treatment.

^ Actually, if you had spent time on these forums over the past few years participating in topics and reading updates, you would realize that the folks at Obsidian have remarkably transparent. There have been several instances where the developers have come to the forums to seek out direct input from the community, or changed a mechanic because of feedback from an update. There have been candid discussions between us backers and the developers that has led to changes in mechanics, attribute designations, etc. It has been a really fascinating process for someone like me to view and participate in. You seem to have more of a consumer's mentality towards the issue of information and transparency; you need to see executed product to feel you are getting your money's worth. That is a valid position, but it's only one of many avenues available to Obsidian to communicate with, and get feedback from their backers. The fact that they have chosen other methods of interacting with us doesn't lessen their commitment to engaging the community.