Posts posted by Sylvius the Mad
I just have to echo this. The 3E Cleric is a massively powerful class.
I disagree. Druids and clerics are both really powerful spellcasters in 3.X. That they have good melee capability on top of that is icing on the cake.
Other game developers should take note - THIS is the sort of announcement that is valuable during development. It discusses mechanics and lore, but doesn't discuss any events or characters within the game, and doesn't spoil anything.
I do, actually. I think that was a good feature in BG - particularly with how the game wouldn't let you access the inventory while paused, so you really needed to think about where all your ammo was in advance.
I'm sure we all have fond memories of shuffling piles of arrows between characters.
I was very disappointed that every other IE game paused the in-game action when the inventory was open.
Hopefully, you'll let us at least control whether the game pauses while accessing inventory.
I prefer not to have my words and actions so irrevocably intertwined.
Just because I say I'll press the button shouldn't force me to press the button. I'd rather the words and actions be kept separate, and the actions be done outside of dialogue events.
It depends what you mean by PnP-like. Modern PnP games have very simple mechanics, to avoid making the players do a lot of work in terms of mathematics. That's bad for CRPGs. But that doesn't mean that CRPGs shouldn't use rules that are still theoretically compatible with tabletop gameplay (even if their computational complexity makes actual tabletop gameplay impractical).
I would like to see a ruleset that incorporates things like archery range bonuses from firing from higher ground where the bonuses are adjusted for tiny elevation differences, even though that wouldn't work in PnP, but I do not want to see mechanics where the rules are inconsistently applied in the name of encounter balancing, for example, because that's not how PnP rules work.
A good companion is a companion I can customise to suit that particular playthrough.
It should absolutely be possible to build a character who is bad at his class.
As for beginner traps, I would argue that later editions (3+) did that more often than the earlier editions did, as the earlier editions offered dual-classing as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Plus, dual-classing allowed you to mix-and-match abilities in non-stanard ways without disadvantaging your character.
Do you want your Necromancer to dual-wield rapiers? You can do that in 3E by taking some Fighter or Rogue levels, but that reduces your effectiveness as a Necromancer relative to your encounter level. But in 2nd edition, you could simply dual-class from Thief or Ranger and then your Necromancer ultimately pays no penalty.
I'm not interpreting his meaning at all. I'm interpreting his words. His meaning is unknowable to any but him.
A) You're misinterpreting his meaning, and, with that being so, he "should"ve chosen better words.
Viable does not mean excellent. His remarks leave open the possibility that some concepts will be better served by some attribute distributions, but it does not allow that there exists any attribute distribution that will break any character concept.
B) He wants you to be able to just put 1 point into Power, and 5,000 points into Wittiness, and you'll still be the hardest-hitting whatever-class-you-are in the entire game. All the attributes actually all do the exact same thing, no matter what. They quite literally serve no purpose.
That we don't know which specific thing he meant doesn't prevent us from knowing that he must have meant at least one of them.
It follows that we could be unable to assign points in a non-viable way. Deducing any "woulds" from that without acquiring clarification from the source (as people obviously know what their thought was when they chose their words, even if their words weren't specific enough to not misrepresent their idea) is useless.
If he's said that each character would be viable no matter how points were allocated, that would actually be good news. That would suggest that each character, regardless of class, could be built a variety of different ways and still be useful and effective.
But what he said was this:
What it really comes down to is what he means by "character concept". I would think that a concept is something like a combination of class and combat role. So, let's suppose a character that is a fighter archer. My take on Josh's statement is that there is no way to assign attributes to that character such that he will be non-viable.
We would like your character concepts to be viable regardless of how you distribute your Attributes.
And that strikes me as wrong. It should be possible to assign attributes such that the character won't be good at the thing he wants to do.
Words have meaning.
Okay, Sawyer said "No matter how you allocate your points." So, we could surmise "Hey, that means if you just put 1 point into each stat, then click 'create', you've STILL got a viable character! 8D!"
It could also mean that we won't be allowed to assign points in such extreme ways - that viable scores will be mechanically enforced (much like how NWN2 had a minimum score that was well above the D&D theoretical minimu of 3).
But either way, that's what he said. And it follows, deductively, from what he said that we won't be able to assign points in a non-viable way.
First of all, you mean infer, not imply. And second, no, that's not obvious at all. If it were obvious, everyone would see it, and I certainly don't.
When, obviously he was assuming people weren't going to imply such a silly thing from those words, even though they could technically mean that.
I can't even begin to fathom what it might mean to take something "too literally."
You're definitely reading FAR too deeply into that quote, and taking it wayyyy too literally.
In a fantasy setting, verisimilitude is generally more valuable than realism. But gamist designs are typically really bad at maintaining verisimilitude.
For better or for worse, that is not the policy of Obsidian Entertainment.
I'm willing to be surprised, but this sounds like bad news. It should be possible to design a character suboptimally.
More "gamist" than "simulationist".
That's the wrong direction. Simulationist is better.
I have to agree. But then, I think the desire to avoid dump stats is too gamey a motivation.
Not a fan of one attribute governing bonus damage to physical AND magical attacks. Unless there's a soul reason for it, that just sounds way too gamey for my liking.
It's possible this all makes perfect sense, but that sense is not yet apparent.
No. Specialisations encourage the designers to shoehorn each class into specific roles (or each specialisation into a specific role), and I don't want them to do that.
Technically, my first character was illegal. 1st edition AD&D Dwarf Paladin. But I hadn't read the rules, yet, and the DM suggested it. Presumbaly he wasn't really into race restrictions. As it happened, I didn't ever actually play in that group, but that's where I created my first character.
Then came the Star Wars RPG - not the d20 game that WotC made, but the original d6 rules. I played Kilchatca, a wookiee with 6 dice of strength - he could just about lift an X-wing himself, and did far more damage with his bare hands than he could with a blaster or bowcaster. So he ended up learning stealth skills so he could sneak up on guys and rip their heads off.
And I've been playing non-standard characters in non-standard ways ever since.
I like hoarding potions. I want to hoard potions. Don't take that away from me.
The mechanic was officially announced, and they appear to have abandoned it for little or no reason.
Verisimilitude is a nice aspect to have in a CRPG. But since the decision has been officially announced, I very much doubt they will add durability back in without a stronger counter-argument.
Abstract realism is tremendously valuable. That alone, I think, is sufficient reason to keep item durability.
Unless I interpreted the original post entirely wrong, other than arguing it adds abstract realism, is there any reason for such a mechanic?
How is that a bad idea? It makes perfect sense, within the world, for those skills to be related. Being good at making something helps you be good at fixing something.
* Tying a required mechanic to crafting (usually an optional side system) is a bad idea.
Would having two separate skills with synergies be better? Maybe. But not having that shouldn't be grounds to discard the repair mechanic entirely.
While I like the gold-dump aspect of item durability, the primary benefits are, I think, roleplaying based. Item degredation improves the overall credibility of the setting, and how the character deals with item degredation is a roleplaying opportunity.
* Durability as primarily a gold dump (besides "making crafting more attractive") is a poor reason when there are any other number of options for economy dumps that can be actual positive content. (I don't mean "positive" as in good, but positive as more than zero-sum.)
Durability always makes sense. Stuff wears out.
* Durability makes sense in MMOs and surival-genre games. Is PE aiming to be like that?
Again, I'm not claiming the durability system couldn't be better. I'm claiming that having the proposed durability system is better than having no durability system.
* The durability mechanic as originally proposed was not intended to be real resource management because items would have "high" durability units, was not tied to the difficulty levels at all or any other nuance of combat (like being crit or relative monster level), and did not apply to unconscious party members/whatever. If durability was really a legitimate resource management tool, it should matter a whole lot more. Like every other battle, with reduced units also reducing performance long before reaching zero.
I wouldn't like that at all. Having a completely stand-alone system would be too video-gamey, and would make less sense in the world.
I'm definitely not the only one who suggested that if the durability mechanic was separated from the crafting system AND was tied to difficulty levels, that'd be okay.
I don't want to have to worry about item durability all of the time, but I also don't want to be able to completely ignore item durability. Again, it's just like inventory management; I don't want to do it all the time, but I do want it to be necessary on occasion.
I expect I will make extensive use of this feature.
Now, if only we could have any party member act as party spokesperson, rather than it always being the PC.
I'll play on whatever setting creates the most level playing field. The party and its enemies should be governed by the same rules. Friendly fire should exist, and be equally deadly to everyone.
I don't really understand why any settings other than this even exist.
Biggest change from the IE games I like:
Any class can fill any combat role.
Have they actually said this?
What I've read is that i.e. rogues are optimized for massive damage to single targets, not crowd control or tanking
Right. Each class is aimed at a specific combat role, and it is easier to build them to fill that role, but they're not limited to that role.
This isn't going to be like DA2 where you must have a tank and only warriors can tank.
Ideally, I'd like to see a game where I can load up the party with just mages, and then those mages can both do enough damage and crowd control that I don't need anyone else.
What PoE can learn from Wasteland 2 release? (faults and lessons to learn)
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
That's a big part of what's wrong with modern games. Wasteland 2 is incredibly refreshing in this regard.