Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jimmysdabestcop

  1. This is what I am talking about for NPC Paladins. They only get level 1 F&C. Exactly what the abilities give. Any more levels in disposition do not get applied for NPC Paladins. Therefore NPC < then every other class
  2. A Ranger is not suppose to be a "Fighter Lite" that is the problem PoE makes. It is becasue PoE strips a ranger of everything he does different then a fighter. Rangers typically would have rogue like abilities which gives them their unique fighting style different from a fighter. Ranger is a sneaky fighter who uses his environment against the enemy. That is also what sets him apart from the Rogue. The ability to use different things in thew environment for help. A Ranger is actually a druid/fighter/rogue hybrid. That's why Rangers usually got druid spells to simulate their environment bonuses. But you could even have an urban Ranger. Rangers typically could even have snares and traps based upon their environment. Like I said before think of commandos as how Rangers should play. I mean animal companions aren't even a Ranger only thing. Paladins were always able to get a war beast as a pet at high level. I do agree I don't want my Ranger in full plate fighting like a Fighter. I've never stated that. Look if you aren't going to have different flavors of classes in PoE then the classes should be made as flexible as possible. I dont want a Ranger to just be ranged. But I also don't want him to fight in melee like a fighter or melee like rogue. Rangers should have their own unique style. Just as a Ranger and Rogue currently have different ranged styles in PoE.
  3. I think the only thing wrong with Rangers at the moment is that it feels like Obisidian is leading you towards being ranged as the ranger. While that should be the players choice. The players needs to decide what path to take. Not the developer. Rangers aren't weak at all. They are pretty strong. Melee or Ranged. Just a lot better in range then melee currently. Way better passives. And if a ranged rogue beats the ranger its really by not much that a ranger needs a boost. I just think the ranger should have both a melee and a ranged path. And that pet is still a pain in the arese haha
  4. Haven't read all 17 pages. But going off of general topic. Probably unfair to compare BG1/BG2 to PoE. BG1/BG2 were still AAA titles and PoE is not. Huge budget differences. BG1 at the time was considered to have brought the cRPG game back to life. Even though Fallout 1 came out the previous year. Then BG2 was a monster of a game. Pound for Pound Undisputed Champion of all cRPG's. Yes I know someone is going to say Planescape but honestly BG2 combat a million times better. And anything going up against D&D being created from scratch is a challenge. D&D has been out for what 40 years? Look at what inXile is doing for Torment: Tides of Numenera. They went with a P&P ruleset instead of creating one from scratch. I would say it would be fair to compare PoE to Wasteland 2 and Divinity Original Sin though. I take PoE over them 2. 1 playthrough of W2 and 3 playthroughs of D:OS. PoE will have for it what Bg1 had going for it. PoE 2 could therefore be legendary.
  5. This thread is just a repeat of 2 current threads so I wont say much more. Typically rangers were dual wield at least in D&D. But even in LoTR the ranger is a master at the sword. Or just look up say Robert's Rangers. That is what all current military rangers are based on and they are from around like 1750. And themselves were made to take best parts from the Native American fighting style. Rangers being rangers would hit and run, counter attacks, use their favored environment as a weapon. And were just as deadly in melee as in range. But PoE most of all their abilities and passives only have to do with Range. Classes need flexibility to allow the player to decide and have equal fun at playing range or melee. Take the wizard you can play either path. Ranger you can play melee but he plays much like a fighter auto attacking just with no real passives that help. Rangers have the exact opposite problem of Barbarians. Since mostly all Barbarian abilities are melee only. Having melee or ranged is not a cRPG. Those choices have to be left up to the player to decide. Classes should have abilites to go down either path. Maybe going down one path cancels the other one out. D7D and the IE Games you were limited in classes. You could have Ranged Fighter and a melee thief. For the most part PoE has class flexibility. But ranger and barbarian do fall short. No one complains the Barbarian cant go ranged in PoE because he is so much of a DPS machine. But that doesn't mean that class is balanced or flexible. nuff said here can't have repeat of 2 threads here.
  6. It is still only for just the Paladin. Priest anti fear spell is for everyone. Or you could just craft a scroll. Why would you need just the Paladin to have anti fear? You want your entire party to have it. See everything a Pally has in PoE can be done either better or easier or for more party members by a different class or item. PoE Paladins aren't exceptional at anything. Every other class has at least 1 aspect that they are exceptional at. Honestly can't see how some people can't see how Pallys are unbalanced or just flat out not a good class in PoE. Maybe if it was the first time you ever seen a Paladin in cRPG, ok fine. But comparing PoE pallys to any other cRPG or even P&P Paladin and then are awful. You can barely compare paladins in PoE to other classes in PoE. Ok I have said enough about Pallys for at least a day or 2.
  7. Perhaps. But still don't see any logical reason for 3 completely different types of magic casting. 1 preferred. 2 ok I will live with it. 3 I can see how first timers and cRPG newbies are completely lost. Having 3 magic systems doesn't make the game better, more fun, or more challenging then developers have to ask why are we using 3 systems? If it doesn't improve the game and its just how they invisioned the classes then concessions have to be made for the general audience.
  8. That seems to be the point. It's a one difficulty skill. Next to useless on any other level. Yeah you barely need consumables at all on normal and hard. And the general audience will be playing normal.But all of the skills are like that. Barely need lore since you dont really need scrolls on normal. Think if you have 4 lore on PC you can pass most speach checks for lore. Stealth and Athletics you only really need 5 and thats if you want your entire party sneaking up to start every encounter. If not athletics just needs 3. Mechanics is the only thing to find traps. And it improves Priest trap/seal spells. That is the only skill to actually be worth something in every playthrough. All the skills barely change game play mechanics. Probably wanted to include it for future dlc or sequels. But 80% of the game would play exactly the same if all the skills were removed completely.
  9. Yes no Party AI and no Scripts. Having no scripts honestly really sucks. But if you change up your party composition and play on normal you wont to manage too much. Make your PC a fighter and bring Eder. That will make it even easier. Maybe even create a ranged rogue adventurer. They can all basically auto attack and dont really need to use their abilities. Then you can just manage your 2-3 casters. That is about all you can do. Also Tip. Dont bring a ranger. Or then you will have to micro manage their pet as well!!
  10. It doesn't matter if the Ranger is one of the most powerful classes. Or what you have done in PotD or even what a Ranger can do in PotD. Especially when a lot of players are just using the Ranger as an Archer. Ranger Does Not Equal Archer. Those words are not synonymous. They aren't the same thing. These are Two problems people see with the Ranger class. 1. Micro managin the pet 2. It doesn't play as a the classic Ranger just an Archer (lack of melee abilities both passive and active) And Paladins there is a 17 page discussion about them now. If there wasn't some kind of problem there wouldn't be that gian discussion. Plus NPC Paladins don't get Faith and Conviction. Which is what Paladins are all about. So all non PC Paladins are gimped. So yes there are problems with both classes. Thats why there are so many discussions about it currently. I dont see 17 page discussions on whats wrong with fighters or priests.
  11. Currently it cant. There will be some sorting features added in 1.05 I believe.
  12. A game can only be balanced and tweaked/patched for normal as the first priority. Potd cannot be taken into consideration when determining if a class is balanced and/or fun to play. I would wager less than 20% of the players of PoE will play Potd. Now more forum members might play Potd then the overall audience. But it is always about the general audience while playing normal mode. Example take Crusader Kings 2. It has been out for 3 has a dedicated fan base. And a large modding community. But when Paradox runs the numbers people actually playing mods compared to everyone else is extremely low. Same ting when they talk about the numbers playing on IronMan mode. Things like that might add more playthroughs for players but it won't make a majority of the general game audience to Play iron Man or potd or have mods. So point talking class balance you have to base it on a normal game.
  13. I dont think per rest spells and the camping mechanic makes the game awful or that it takes "points" off of a review or anything. I continue to think its confusing to have limited camping and 3 different rule sets for casters. They could do a variation of the D&D 5ed ruleset for casting. in that you can cast spell on different level. Example 1st level heal you can cast as 5th level spell. What PoE could do is take idea and say give all casters a new ability say 2-3 times per encounter where it lets them cast any spell they know. Could pick this talent on 2nd level. Maybe the talent starts at 1 spell per encounter then they allow for a second or third upgrade. Honestly that is all that is probably missing. is there a reason you need to cast 12 spells for each caster every encounter? Probably not. But it be cool to cast 1-3 spells per encounter. i think something along those lines would be a neat compromise and not even upset the game balance or mechanics. Some players might not even pick it for all their casters. They might want better offense or defense or maybe more overall spells. It adds a lot of flexibility to the game and probably more fun as well.
  14. I still disagree. On 1 normal and 2 hard play throughs. I never had a problem with fear party members or confused. If I am that worried about fear I am going to drop Priest Spell for the entire party. Now maybe if Righeous Soul was a Paladin Aurora and it helped the entire party it be cool. But I'm not having that many party members get confused anyway so the -5 sec is irrelevant. Also if the Paladin Class was balanced and fun there wouldn't be 17 pages discussing why they suck. Fact.
  15. And even if it does really make the beginning of the game slower. It would either need to be a PC cipher or created one because GM is hard to pickup until levels 5/6 usually. And the PC early game will be 1 level ahead of all created characters anyway. So maybe the first 45 minutes of the game might slower. I haven't tested the beta patch myself I am just guessing off of info provided. I can say right now in my hard play through. I have 1 caster a Cipher. And yup mental bind everyone all the time non stop basically.
  16. Real Simple Perfect Party: 3 Melee 3 Ranged and/or Casters With 1 melee able to flex to range and 1 range able to flex to 2nd line reach or flank melee. Then class combinations are up to the player. You can get real creative. Fighter, 2 monks, 3 druids for example. But if you follow that outline you will typically be really strong. And you don't even have to really specialize. Example having 1 character being a "super defender" but cant do damage and another character being a "DPS machine" but cant defend. If you want to get that specific, cool. But it isn't really needed. Again players choice.
  17. Only for the PC not NPC Paladins or adventurer created Paladins. Faith and Conviction doesn't apply. While anyone in your party can be a fighter that is the same as the PC fighter. And the F&C isn't even noted in the 1.05 Patch Notes. I haven't heard any info from Dev's about it yet. And the Paladin doesn't have fear or charm immunities. He can take an ability that gives him +15 but its almost exactly like the generic talent that any class can take except the Pally class adds posion resistance in it too. Plus Defender & Wary Defender give every Fighter: +15 defelection, +10 fortitude, +10 reflex, +10 will, +2 enemies engaged and penalty of -.2 attack speed. NPC with Faith and Conviction & Deep Faith: +7 defelection, +15 fortitude, +15 reflex, +15 will How is a Fighter Defender not better then NPC F&C?
  18. I agree I don't like micro managing the pet at all. Wondering why they didn't make it a per encounter summon based upon character level? Say 60-90 seconds. Or even once per rest and have it last 12 hours. At least that way if it died there be a big penalty and would force you to rest. Now pet get KO'ed its just annoying for 15-30 seconds. The Summon would allow you not to always have to bring it to every single engagement. You could still have talents that buffed it on level and you would be free to pick them if you wanted. And since the Pet wasn't 100% always activate Obsidian could add f*ing melee abiltiies for the Ranger to balance the pet not being out 100% of the time.
  19. Honestly don't understand this class at all. Especially as an NPC. If NPC's are ever meant to get the F&C bonus. Then a NPC Pally has no chance to be a better attack then a fighter, a better defender then a fighter or a better support chjaracter as a priest or chanter. What sucks is this is a pseudo Paladin class. Not really a Paladin and not really a Knight. I mean you would figure Paladins are always in heavy armor so why does only the fighter get a recovery ability? And you would almost always expect to see a Pally with a 2H weapon or sword and shield. Why do they get no abilities for either of those? Could have even made the Paladin into a real "tank" class and given some kind of guard ability. Say with large shield passively take X damage from nearest party member. A Paladin has always been a warrior melee class. But it gets nothing to improve speed or damage. Except to improve some lame ability that can be used Twice per encounter. So after 3 seconds of a battle a Pally has no offensive abilties to use or even as Passives. I mean you can even turn Durance into a top A defender. Frontline melee warrior. Now he will only really inflict damage from spells. But he can support your other 2 melee party members. Cast his offensive spells, his buffs/debuffs, heals, plus if you boost his mechanics his seal/trap spells are amazing the entire game. And a player created NPC Priest can actually even do melee damage. Most of your melee type classes you can sub out for one another. Same thing for range and even casters. Those classes are actually balanced when compared to each other for the most part. I just don't ever see why anyone would sub a Pally in for any other frontline class. Except for RP reasons. O
  20. The regen is also based off of might. More might more regen. And there is another talent that boosts it more. Plus a unique Fighter Cape that boosts regen further. So if you have 1 fighter their regeneration is going to be pretty damn high. And if you wanted to go crazy you could the normal regen items to the fighter. Still don't see the point of a Paladin except for role play reasons. A fighter can defend basically just as good and still do way more damage. Doesn't need management and can regen so basically never falls. And also gets second life talent. The Paladin as a support role would work if it wasn't for the Priest and Chanter doing a much much better job at supporting. Not making the Paladin with accerss to some spells or the vanquisher of the undead (could have been vessels in PoE) is a huge negative to the class. Maybe if their base auroras were bumped up 1-2m they be better. And that is the probably with percentage based increases. It is hard to boost a small base 2.5m. It make more sense if every point of Int gave a certain distance, every point of Con gave a certain HP increase. That is why know one bumps up Con on many many builds. If you aren't bumping someone who has a natural high HP/Endurance then the % increase does nothing and is just a waste. And the Paladin suffers from this. You would think boosting him to 18 Int would be awesome. But it is barely different then leaving Int at 10.
  21. I also like 3-4 melee. With at least 2/3 of them on the front line. my current hard playthrough I have 3 frontliners, a bear, quarterstaff ranger for reach. Only 1 caster a cipher. Just wanted to really change up the party. I also really think the pet is hurt by not having scripts. Scripts at least could control the pet better. Guard xx party member; only attack whoever the ranger attacks; only attack if engaged; etc Now you have to really put some management into them because pets are basically squishy melee chartacters. End game I honestly get tired of managing the pet. If he kets KO'ed so be it. Let my ranger suffer that encounter I'm not really relying on my ranger that much. And they probably should have broken up the PoE Ranger into 2 seperate classes. PoE Ranger takes out everything ranger like and just focus on like beastmaster. All of the counter strike, surprise attack, shadow fighting, melee characteristics have been taken out of the ranger. The PoE Ranger is like a zoo keeper archer. Might as well have called it anything else besides ranger.
  22. I agree that it isn't a full implemenation. Right now you really only have to rest for 3 conditions. Out of spells, maimed or low hp or several party members have received special conditions after the choose your own adventure type of story inserts . (sorry no idea what they are called). What the IE games also had was level drain and abiltity point drain. If you caster lost 2 levels you have to rest because you be missing tons of spells. Now not saying PoE needs drain mechanic. But I do like camping, maiming, and special conditions aka buasted rib/consussion/etc as (again) part of some hardcore mode. Right not you are maimed (or dead) if you lost all your HP. Could add bad conditions when character gets knockouts and looses endurance. Consucsison, broken ribs, broken arm etc. Maybe not only let consumables buff you but have them requiered or you start to starve/dehydrate. I don't really know I'm just snowballing here. It just seems camping and fast travel with no encounters exists then why even both limiting camping. My hard campaign you get 2 camps and that didn't boterh me at all. Of course my last playthrough was only with 1 caster a cipher so I almost never had to rest. Most of the time that I had to rest was after side quests where you have to fast travel all over your map to complete and like 6 days pass. I will say after "taking that nasty fall" that is spoken of I had 1 or 2 characters receive bad conditions from low dexterity/athletics and I didn't even bother resting to remove them. It wasn't on my PC so it didn't matter.
  23. I dont know why Obisidian just didn't give unlimited rest and random encounters based upon Exp points or based upon area character party is at. IWD HoF mode restign without save scumming when low on spells or hp was dangerous. Limiting camping supplies in PoE actually does absolutely nothing. Makes no sense. Serves no point. Honestly is just more annoying then anything. There is no danger from running out of supplies just fast travel to town, rest get bonus and buy supplies. So why have this "feature" in the game? If it doesn't increase role playing, doesn't increase fun. doesn't increase enjoyment, doesn't increase challenge; as a developer you have to ask then "why is this in the game?????" Perhaps what they should have done was remove it and come up with a "hardcord" PoE mode and add it as a small DLC or something. At least hardcore mode in Fallout LV changed enough of the game to make it worthwhile to have a playthroguh with it turned on.
  24. A Sidenote....Minsc did get an extra attack for being a ranger if equipped with a 1 handed weapon in original umodded Bg1. Now he did come with a 2H sword but you could change it. BG1 original unmodded didn't have real dual wield only pseudo dual wield so it just added an extra attack for Rangers. Then later with mods when they dumped BG1 into BG2 engine he could proper dual wield. And in the EE editions he could as well. Ok back to rangers.... I actually do agree the Barbarian/Monk are to melee focused but since this was a ranger thread I didn't want to bring it up. It would be hard to make Monks ranged because of wounds. But it could be possible if they were given some kind of ranged psuedo Kai power attack. Barbarian I'm not sure if it could be made ranged either like previously stated so much is based off of having 50% endurance. I do like playing the Monk and Ranger still in PoE. I actually don't like the Barbarian at all for some reason. But their damage bug was a pretty big turn off. Maybe I will try after next patch. I just think every class should be able to have abilities that work in both melee and ranged. Not every ability has to work in both but there could at least be choices. If you take these then you cant take these other abilities. Or some abilities that work both, some just ranged and some just melee. Then its up to the player to decide. Not every single player likes to min/max or design the perfect character or even the perfect party. I mean you have a Rogue most of their abilities/talents work both melee and ranged but then they do have specific abilities that only work in melee. Even though their defenses aren't that good the player has the choice where to line the Rogue up at because of their abilities working in both types of combat. For example if a rogue couldn't sneak attack or death blow from ranged their class would be worthless as a ranged class. Now take a look at the Ranger who has defenses and Endurance for melee but all his abilities are ranged. He does get the speed bump from Swift Aim and the follow up ability so if you also take Cautious Attack the speed penalty will be suppressed. Which makes the Ranger an even better defender with no penalty. But then no other abilities. The Ranger should have been designed with enough flexibility just like the Rogue.
  25. If PoE is suppose to be a throwback and IE spiritual successor then Rangers should also be melee. It wasn't until these modern MMO's that all of a sudden rangers always equaled archers. Being a Ranger does not equal being an archer. Could a ranger be an archer? Yes. But not every ranger 100% of the time. A ranger was like a fantasy realm commando who protected his favored environment and worked from the shadows. Sure a lot of Elf Rangers used a bow because they got bonuses with all bow weapons. But Human Rangers were just as good dual wielding a long and short sword. Take Minsc from BG1 he could be adapted for dual wield, 2 handed, or bow. They always had stealth and some rangers even had thief backstab "lite" abilities. I give Obsidian credit for the Pet/Companion the concept works well. However Obsidian is still missing 1 or 2 melee related abilities for the ranger. Or just a re-balancing of their current abilities to work ranged or at melee distance. It is that simple. I don't see the big deal. More flexibility in a class just allows better role playing by the player. One player wants an archer ranger, ok cool. Another might want a 2 handed and another still might want to dual wield. And currently you can still do that in the game you just get bare minimum benefit from ranger abilities.
  • Create New...