Cantousent

You could make quite a powerful offensive cleric in some of the IE games. 3.x did a great job of making a warrior priest a viable build, but even saying that, I don't know that the PoE priest is bad per se. It's a matter of getting into the nitty gritty, which is why I read all of these character creation threads, even if only to lurk most of the time. The problem with a new and innovative system is that you have to unravel some of the class characteristics. Crunching numbers doesn't always do it. You have to experiment with different skills, talents, spells, etc. Then, when you find an unforeseen exploit, you'd best use the hell out of it until they nerf it in the next patch. ...Or, better yet, they don't nerf it. This isn't an MMORPG. If someone finds some super cool unforeseen exploit, they'll have to post about it which means it's after the fact. Let them have the exploit. Anyhow, I guess my point is that clerics in the BG games didn't *need* to be healbots, although I tended to play them that way myself. You could make a damn fine offensive character who could take a beating and dish out some ugly. EDIT: Sorry, diminished capacity right now and I can't remember the other end of 'not only,' so I removed it.

agreed. Thanks, Mutie.

I've never said that graphics weren't important for a release. In fact, sometimes it seems that folks argue that the designers should go out of their way *not* to have good graphics, which I find bewildering at best. ...But I like the graphics in WL2. I don't like the fact that moving the camera around is clunky, but the characters animate certainly well enough to suit my tastes. I *like* the feel of the game, and I neither backed WL2, nor had I any intention to purchase it during development. I'm just lucky that my pledge for PoE included the game.

I'm kind of the same way, Jobby, except that for me it's PS:T. Of course, the Planescape universe is so... weird that it's tough to find games that really fit in the same way. I *am* enjoying WL2 quite a bit. There are some unpolished aspects and I agree that some of the skills are out of whack, but it's still been a lot of fun. It makes me glad that I ponied up for Tides of Numenera. I'm not all that far into the game, though, so I guess it could all go downhill and I'll have to own to it if that happens. I've only seen four different locations outside of random encounters.

I actually really appreciate the fact that you crunch all these numbers, Matt. The fact that you explain them simply without sounding condescending and superior is merely a plus. Keep up the good work, bud.

I was going for mock anger rather than outright pissiness, but I guess that really *was* the vino talking. Anyhow, That's what I meant by tertiary was the fact that might governs 'healing.' I just got ahead of myself while I was typing and didn't really go into that. I called it tertiary, but I suppose that's not even fair, since self heals are pretty significant in PoE. With that in mind, Might is a hell of a lot more important for 'tanking' than in 2nd edition or 3.x DnD. However, I read something Monte posted in another thread, and I *do* agree that I don't like rigid 'roles' for classes. I don't always like the rock/paper/scissors paradigm. I mean, sure, having fighters be the frontliners who basically stand toe to toe. I don't mind that, but I do hate reducing their roles to 'meat shield.' I hate the whole 'glass cannon' idea behind wizards. ...But I think PoE actually does a lot to *prevent* that rigid stereotype.

I'm talking about D&D not some half-arsed MMO. What the hell are you on about? Maybe it's the vino talking here, but DnD STR doesn't make you more durable. it helps you carry more and do more damage. It doesn't do a damned thing to avoid or survive more damage. It doesn't do so in any version of DnD up to and including 3.x as far as I remember. We're not talking any MMORPGs here. We're talking ol' skool RPGs. I'm confused as hell as to why they named the things they did, but I don't think there's any real disconnect in how the attributes work. I would, to be honest, wish they'd try to find a way to make the names of the attributes more intuitive, but might seems to me to be *more* helpful for tanking in PoE than in DnD, if only in a kind of tertiary way. Okay, in the logic straining sense that doing more damage kills enemies more quickly and thus you prevent damage to your tank, it works in exactly the same way as DnD. MMO? Give me a break. ...And, any version other than 2nd edition (and perhaps some 3.x) would break with the much venerated IE gameplay mechanics anyhow.

Slightly off topic, but Isn't SRD open licence? I don't know. That's a good point, though. I mean, it would make virtually the same rules possible. I think they'd have angry folk on that end too. ...But I'm like Namutree. I won't call someone names for wanting the same mechanics. Well... maybe in a fit of irrational anger, but then I'll regret it. :Can't huge grin icon:

The mechanics of IE games were all based on Dungeons and Dragons. Mostly 2ed. Obsidz couldn't even get the license for Dungeons and Dragons and, if they could, WotC would probably insist that they use the latest version of the rules. Obsidian was never going to try to completely replicate the DnD rules. I personally don't think they should have.

That was so weird. :Can't confused shaking his head icon: Anyhow, back to regularly scheduled programming. Like M.MK up above, I find some of the WL2 material campy and funny. It has a certain charm. I don't think PoE is being built in quite the same way, and I don't want it to get too campy, but a little levity is good. Also like W.MK, I didn't back WL2, although I *did* back ToN. I have enjoyed playing the game so far. I'm taking Grom and Walker's advice, however, and restarting with some minor tweaks. I don't mind living with mistakes in my build, but I *do* get irritated with having a skill next to useless. I'll keep toaster repair just for the camp value, but I'll narrow my skill focus to ditch ones with extremely limited use.

Sounds kind of like a nomenclature thing again. I mean, if there were simply a mechanic that allowed some marginal hits to do some but not as much damage, it wouldn't matter, right? It's like the poster up above who suggested having the toggle for off or on for grazes. Why not do that for hits? For misses? For spells cast? I mean, what if they didn't identify grazes as such but simply used the same term for all damaging hits. Some would technically be grazes in the mechanics, but the log would only identify a low damage hit. If combat generally takes too long and there are too many grazes, it's not a problem with the idea of a wider damage spread. It's a problem with the underlying mechanics. However, I will say that having some opponents who must be taken down basically through attrition is not in and of itself bad. You just don't want to have a lot of long slogging encounters throughout the entire game. A few well armored enemies that require more endurance on the part of the fighters and perhaps a few well placed spells sounds great. On the hand, the whole idea that it makes combat too fast because *more* damage is actually dealt, I don't see why combat should take longer anyway. That said, some of the battles in the beta are excruciatingly drawn out, but the log seemed to indicate that some of that might have been bugs and I haven't tried combat in the newest patch yet.

There's also a difference between retro graphics and bad graphics. On the other hand, I don't think the graphics are *bad* in either WL2 or PoE. I think they look good. Some of the backdrops in PoE are actually quite pretty, and that's just the beta. Even better, PoE still has some time to polish the graphics. I've had fun with WL2, and I've used just about every skill in the game so far. I just hope that I don't end up regretting putting points into disarming alarms because that would just be sad. Still, Walker's account sounds reasonable, so I suspect he's right about it. Damn!

Ahh, it's the sin that dare not speak its name, but I used to play MMORGPs and when I talk about testing a theory, I mean *a lot* of hours.

I've always thought that hard numbers should be supported by practical experience. So I'll be shamelessly reading Matt's math assessment and testing it. <.<

I've never been able to disarm traps, but I haven't created my own rogue and stacked Mechanics. Anyhow, I'll stop raging about disarm and lock-picking XP, but only because I was giving myself a headache. I created a character last night in the new build, but I didn't go out to adventure yet. It's discouraging that stealth triggers through walls, but that's clearly a bug. You should write it up, Hiro.

I agree with this, but it happens the other way too. I mean, I try to separate irritation with specific arguments from attitudes about specific members of the forum, and in the long run I succeed at that. ...But some arguments just torque me more than others. The idea that a player is less free because he doesn't receive a specific type of reward for an activity he's inclined to undertake anyway? Rhetoric comes a Greek word for, basically, speech. It came to mean more or less a public speech and the idea of rhetoric formed the basis of Roman civil law, especially in the Republic where speech mattered a hell of a lot more. Under the idea of legal speeches, rhetoric took a situation and boiled it down to two sides. There might be any number of views, but there is a plaintiff and a defendant and the court can only decide for one or the other. That's how it is with the XP question, romances, or any other number of issues. We end up picking sides even if the views on either side are not really uniform in the first place. I often read a post by someone who is for kill-XP and find that I agree in some part. I don't have the same conclusion, but it's best to try not to personalize the issue if possible. After all, I don't think that folks who clamor for kill-xp want it 'just 'cause.' They think the game would be better with it. I'd like to think folks who want kill XP would likewise realize that some of us aren't just defending Obsidz for the sake of fanboyism. I honestly believe that RPGs are generally better without incentivizing incidental XP. (yeah yeah, what's 'incidental XP?') There is at least some common ground on the issue, and I believe that Obsidz is trying to find it. The bestiary might not be the best answer to folks on either side, but it's a compromise that gets approval in broad middle and that should count for something.

How does the lack of kill XP prevent you from playing the game you want? Before I get a flippant nonsense answer, the fact is you can do all the same things. You have no less freedom. You don't want freedom. You aren't a patriot. You don't stand for the lofty goal of Democracy. You are no freedom fighter. You simply want the devs to provide the XP crack to which you are addicted.

My friend, it's simply not you. Think of this as our own little version of the Blood Wars, and you've got two forces of absolute evil fighting to see which one can be worse. My vote is for myself, of course.

Words do matter. Otherwise every post we make here would be random gibberish. (Okay, okay, I know that to some of you, that's all *mine* are.) The point is, the problem is defining the terms. For example, I don't prefer 'quest XP' or 'objective XP.' Nope, I prefer 'results XP.' I throw my own little term into the mix and it can be confusing, especially if I don't state clearly how it is different from the others. I'm not going to do that for 'results XP' now because, to be candid, this thread has so much to digest that I don't want to muddy the waters. For that reason, I've been using 'quest XP' and 'objective XP,' and by and large I've been using them interchangeably. I agree with my Hellraising friend that there is a difference in definition, but it's become so muddled that there isn't much difference in usage. Likewise, if you define 'spiritual successor' as 'slavishly following every old convention because people have been conditioned to expect it in the manner of Pavlov's dog,' then I think the phrase will cause heartache and grief. ...But Obsidian didn't cite a bunch of random games in appealing for backers. They cited Infinity Engine games. Now, as I've said quite a bit, that doesn't mean it must have 'kill-' 'combat-' 'random ganking XP' to do the job, but I can't get mad at folks for bringing it up. That's a point of discussion, and I don't want to trivialize what I see as a valid point of view with which I disagree. 'kill XP' was not what made the IE games great for me, and so it is not necessary for PoE to have 'kill XP' in order to have that great IE feel. Of course, I could mention Lephys' distinction between 'combat-' and 'kill XP' because I agree with it, but why interrupt the successor argument? :Cant's **** eating grin icon:

My thoughts are a perhaps a bit diffused at the moment, I will admit, but I don't know why we would even pick a fight over whole 'spiritual successor' idea. Yeah, I get that the game is not meant as a spiritual successor to each IE game in every aspect, but obs clearly was hearkening back to the IE games. ...And why not? I think they've done a pretty good job of it. I concede that the beta has flaws, but it really nails the feel of the IE games pretty damned well. Of course, that's subjective. Then again, what the hell isn't subjective in these discussions in the first place? I also think that Wasteland 2 nails the feel of the old Fallout games really well. That doesn't mean that New Vegas isn't one of my favorite all time games. For folks who foolishly think Gromnir shills for Obsidz, go take a look at his numerous gripes about *that* title. Most *most* of the people in these threads aren't single issue voters. We have a variety of things that appeal to/aggravate us. Don't let the 'spiritual successor' argument get to you is all I'm saying. I have to admit I get a kick out of Parry's desire to stay away from the topic. Give it up, Perry. It's like the Mafia. It's like the Hotel California. You can check out any time you like, but you can't never leave! lol :Cant's slapping Parry on the back icon:

I'm with Lephys 100%. In 'quest' terms, I don't think they should slavishly make all quests the same. Some quests might not allow combat. Some might require it. Some might have a stealth or diplomacy option, but no combat. I don't think there should be some way for every playstyle to do every possible thing. I *do* think there should be parity in how much each can do.

Damned straight I can! :huge grin: On a serious note, Hiro, I don't think it should matter at this point whether someone is a backer or not. What should matter right now is who has the better idea. They could do away with the backer badge thing or whatever it's called. I trust Obsidian to do the game right, otherwise I would not have backed it. When I decided to back it, I did so understanding that they were the ones designing the game and would undoubtedly do it better than me anyway.

What aspects are dubious? If some one is an adventurer he should be given xp for exploring/discovering areas since that is what adventurers do. If anything; it's non-discovery xp that is dubious. As far as I'm concerned, quest-xp is easily the most dubious & least important kind of xp there is. I suppose I have *my* reasons for finding it dubious, which is why I spoke for myself. ...But, from Elrond's explanation, I'm actually quite happy with it. The system I envision would be quite a bit more robust, but I've already described those ideas in the previous thread and there probably isn't much use in going over them at this point. Exploration XP is apparently in, which is good for you and I don't begrudge it to you in the least. It is still objective related, which is what I would prefer, so I hope you don't begrudge me being happy about that. Anyhow, I'm dubious of more than just Exploration XP, but that's a whole new can of worms and there's no point in muddying the waters any further.

That's great info, C2B. I mean, I still think exploration XP sounds sketchy, but I also don't know exactly how they're going to handle it. Clearly, they're trying to accommodate people who don't want strictly quest XP. If this method helps, I'm all for it, even if I still find some aspects dubious. ...But sometimes a truce dividing the hill in half is better than everyone dying on top of it.

I frankly get irritated with you sometimes, Immortal, but you have to respect a straightforward statement. ...And, for the record, yeah, I *did* know my counter argument regarding combat and XP was a rehash. Then again, what the hell isn't at this point? :Cant's rueful grin icon: Then there's this, which made me laugh out loud: "rage monkeys throwing digital panties" I love Gromnir when he's not beating me up. The bastard! I think we need more levity in these XP threads before we start eating each other. :Cant's looking over his shoulder icon: For the record, I'm too grisly to taste good.