Search the Community

After completing Hook Mt, only one character was allowed to choose a role. Is this expected or is there now another way to choose roles for the remaining characters in the party?

Andriod OS 6.0.1 Samsung S5 pfid-F99674E1F8EBAEA5 Play order: Ran story through ogres with Mireil and Kyra purchased Seoni and ran through again, but apparently missed completing "Battle at the Dam" Applied July patch purchased Valeros completed story through "Battle at the Dam" Now stuck at rewards screen: Both Valeros and Seoni have earned a power feat, I have to assign both feats before I can select the blue continue arrow. Once I select the continue arrow, Seoni unlocks roles, but since she has no power feats to assign, I can't select the continue arrow. I am able to select the roles button and choose Celestial Sorcerer or Abyssal Sorcerer patch, but I'm not able to see desciptions of powers or select.

Following on from a discussion in Sensuki's Class primer thread, myself and Malekith both found a dissonance present in the presentation of the Rogue as the superior damage dealer when compared to the Fighter. We both came to the conclusion that this dissonance is present because of terminology, a Rogue presents a certain image of thievery, stealth and misdeeds, while a Fighter suggests an expertise in the art of Fighting. Thus I believe a suggestion thread for alternate Class names seemed appropriate. Obviously this is a personal and biased opinion, and my respectful suggestions are simply that, and I might add that I am aware of being a curmudgeonly old relic out of touch with modern norms. So with the aforementioned disclaimer I present an alternate list of names for the classes which are personally problematic. Fighter: Soldier, Legionnary, Guardian, Defender, Shieldbearer, Warden. Rogue: Assassin, Blademaster, Swordmaster, Weaponmaster, Killer. Barbarian: Dervish, Wardancer, Brave. Obviously this makes the profession of Thief no longer associated with what was previously the Rogue class, but that to my mind makes sense, in Eternity anyone can sneak, handle mechanical devices etcetera. In reality anybody can steal, muggers are not expert pickpockets or particularly stealthy, and thieves do not conform to one role. Please feel free to suggest alternate Class names or deride my misguided efforts.

I originally posted this over at the RPGCodex for a few of the newcomers to the P:E mega-thread over there, but I've noticed a lot of class related questions around the place, so here's a quick primer based on the current information: (Some of this may be wrong/out of date, but I'm sure if it is, I will be corrected) Every class will be good in combat. Josh Sawyer wants to remove as many traps in character creation as he can because he hates it when players stop playing games because they made a bad choice. He also wants as many builds and party combinations to be viable as possible. The classes are being designed as role-ready, which appears a little bit pigeonholed on paper compared to D&D 3E, but we'll have to see how we go. If you play characters out of role, they will be more inefficient filling a role that another class is best at (75% - 90% efficacy roughly) and depending on the game difficulty level you may run into trouble, but it should be viable to do it at least some of the time. From the way Josh Sawyer has been describing it, classes have natural counter-classes as well. Rogues and Rangers are the damage dealing classes. Rogues have the best single target single-hit damage of all of the classes, Rangers have very high DPS (particularly against their per-encounter favored enemy). These characters will probably not hold up well to being beat on though, a Fighter's sticky abilities counter a Rogue. The Ranger shares health pool with it's animal companion. We do not know if you get bonus health/stamina from this link, but a Ranger also has to be careful that their animal companion doesn't get trapped ... kind of like Lone Druid in DotA 2 except a lot more terminal. Barbarians will be good at dealing with trash mobs and squishies. Barbarians will be tough as well and can take a lot of hits from average enemies, but they will probably suffer if targeted by high DPS characters because their deflection sucks and they are 'peaky' characters. Fighters and Monks are the characters you want out in the front being the tanks, soaking up the DPS. Fighters have high Deflection and can hold people to them with their class abilities, Monks want to take damage to power their status effects which you can use to hold people back from your squishies. The original Fighter description in the very first class update read that "And while fighters are often thought of as being primarily melee-based, they can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms.". In a recent statement Sawyer said that using a Fighter as a ranged character is playing against type because most of their abilities are melee based. You could still probably specialize in a Ranged weapon but you'd never get the chance to use half the class abilities. You can probably build a Fighter as a non-tank and play one like a Ranger or a Rogue, but you'll be doing it at 70-80% efficiency compared to the class that fills that role. Wizards are designed to be versatile spell casters. Their spells will probably let them do everything, but their Grimoire limits the array of spells they have access to per encounter, so rather than having a spell for everything available in an encounter you have to pick your spells correctly. Sawyer has also said that while Wizards are versatile their spells will never be as effective as another classes ability if they are similar. Paladins are good when positioned near allies. They will never be able to 1v1 a high DPS class and win, but if you stick them in melee near your Fighters/Monks etc their short range auras will benefit them, and likewise if you set them up with a Bow or an Arquebus and stick them near the Rangers and Wizards, and use the short range auras to buff their attack speed or accuracy etc. Chanters are supposed to be pretty versatile, they can be melee or ranged, have good accuracy and average defenses and they chant while fighting to give status effects to the party and/or themselves. The Chants have a large aura range compared to the Paladin. After a certain amount of ticks, the Chanter can unleash a (usually offensive) roar, which probably has to be close range to either damage/stun/slow etc a group of enemies. Chanters look like they'll be one of those classes that can 'fill' any role with a varying degree of efficacy loss. For example: You could tank with a Chanter, it would be less efficient than using a Fighter or a Monk, but better than using a Rogue, Ranger, Cipher or Wizard. They might have an aura that makes them more 'tanky' and they might have a Roar that does an AoE cone stun, but they will never be as good as a Fighter or a Monk and if you use a Chanter as the tank they will run out of Health over an adventuring day faster than a Fighter or a Monk would and they wouldn't be able to last as long in an Encounter if being beat on by tough guys. You know about Ciphers from the latest update. Priests and Druids are primarily spell caster classes and have access to all of their spells rather than relying on a Grimoire, but their spell list is not as extensive as the Wizard. One could assume that you can build a melee or ranged Cleric or Druid but according to recent information they might be most optimally played as a ranged/reserve melee character. Druids have the limited ability shapechange into "anthropomorphic animal forms, more like lycanthropes in appearance". You can cast spells while in your animorph form but you can't hold weapons. You could have a Longbow Druid, shapechange into a Man-Bear and then wade into melee with Claws. Priests have the only non-self Stamina regen spell(s) so far that we know. Priests also benefit from being in close proximity to allies to give them their Sacred Circle passive accuracy bonus, but if they aren't they get it themselves. Josh Sawyer stated today that "(PE) priests have shifted away from the original concept of them being melee/caster hybrids. They are closer-range casters than wizards, but they aren't particularly strong in melee (paladins take on the role of close-combat support). Their spells are designed to be on par with wizards' in overall power, but they have a different flavor and trend differently. E.g., wizards have some nice personal buffs but virtually no area buffs. Priests have a few personal buffs, but have a lot of huge AoE buffs." The class 'role' design overall sounds pretty robust, it just plays against a few of the traditional archetypes that some of us are used to. For me the Paladin and the Barbarian are in the frey, toe to toe with the biggest monsters just as much as the Fighter is. Wizards are also nerfed quite a bit. Ciphers are more "Soulblade" oriented than the well known "Psion" class.

What are your thoughts on the diversity of roles that any given class can take? Should classes be more linear in their character choices, focusing on a specific role, or should they be more diverse, capable of taking a variety of roles based on choices made? I realize there is already a topic similar to this, but if I remember correctly, the topic is about a year old. So instead of bumping an old topic, I wanted to start anew and open the topic with some ideas of my own in regards to roles, classes, and party dynamics. The point of this topic is to throw around ideas for how classes should be built and what choices are available to players in terms of abilities, traits, and attributes to create builds. > Roles In Strategy RPG's I think by now, everyone can recognize four basic roles in strategy games. You have your Tanks, which act as the center of attention and absorb incoming damage for your allies, DPS, which inflict the highest damage over time to enemies, Mezzer, which control mobs with status effects (not necessarily mandatory), and Healer, which provides buffs and healing to the party members (mostly to the Tanks). These are the simple ideas behind each role, but they are not even what I see as important roles in a party. Honestly, a party make-up can be further simplified to just DPS and Healer, since the only requirements for a successful party build is a way to deal damage efficiently and a way to avoid damage efficiently. In essence, roles are defined by the threats in a game. If every conflict can be dealt with by simply beating someone up, you don't even need roles, really. Most of the time, classes are built to appeal to a role. In games which allow more lenience in builds, such as pen-and-paper tabletop games, a player determines their role by how they mix and match classes and character choices (traits, abilities, etc.). I think the simplest example that comes to mind is the Druid class in Pathfinder. There are two main builds for Druids; one centered around 'wild-shaping' and one centered around 'spell casting'. In Pathfinder, wild-shaping is simply a set of physical Ability Score modifications and bonus special rules. As such, the wild-shaping Druid must sacrifice their spell-casting potential for better physical attributes. On the other hand, if the Druid wished to be the spell casting variant, they would increase their spell casting attribute to increase the effects of their spells. In one hand, the Druid is a physical damage dealer and more tough than their spellcaster counterpart. In the other, the Druid has more supportive abilities, such as better healing and stronger control effects, than their wild-shaping counterpart. This illustrates an example of greater flexibility in roles as a certain class based on character choices (choosing to be more warrior-like or more spellcaster-like). I will speak later about how this appeals to my own ideas about party roles and parties. Now let's consider the Infinity Engine games and what roles are played in those games, or at least what I've perceived according to my experience. > Roles In IE Games Infinity Engine games typically split their classes between 'Mages, 'Priests', 'Warriors', and 'Rogues', but when it comes to the actual task of playing through the game, I've identified the following roles for (in my opinion) effective gameplay: The BSF: Also known as the Big Stupid Fighter and the Meat Shield. When it comes down to it, the BSF is the primary source of damage for your party. They have the most HP, the lowest AC (nothing is more terrifying than melee combat supremacy at -10 AC), and the highest melee damage. An archetypal Tanker is not expected to deal that much damage, medium at most, which is why the BSF is not your typical Tanker. They have the highest THAC0, the best weapons, and the highest Strength among your party members. In most cases, the party is simply supporting the BSF, such is the case of the Spellcaster. The BSF is typically a Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin. The Spellcaster: I think many people maintain the idea that the Mage and the Cleric are two different beasts with quite different roles. The Mages are the archetypal blasters, with spells like Magic Missile and Fireball. The Clerics are the archetypal healers and buffers. However, I put them together because, in my experience, they perform a similar role, and that is to support the BSF. The Spellcaster has two goals in a fight; keep the BSF going and make the BSF better at killing. Healing and summoning creatures as distractions are the best methods to keep the BSF going. Buffing and crowd control make the BSF better at killing. In regards to Blaster Casters (Mages with a plethora of direct-damage effects), I don't believe this is the best direction for a Mage, considering the limitations of the Vancian spell system used in IE games. As such, Mage spells with longer durations, including, but not limited to, summoning spells and crowd controls are actually more effective than direct damage. Not to mention the higher chance of team-killing with blast spells like Fireball and Cloudkill, the BSF has to clear out of the way in order to maximize the spell's effect (it's not worth it to damage the enemy if you also damage your allies) and some enemies are highly resistant to certain elemental damage. Therefore, I typically let wands and scrolls do the blasting for me. Why waste slots on blast spells when you can just use a wand? Regardless, most of the time, I let the Utilitarian do the ranged damage. The Spellcaster is typically a Mage, Cleric, or Druid. The Utilitarian: I recall in games having that one rogue to handle traps, lock-picking, conversations (depending on rule set), and scouting. Most of the time, this character had high Dexterity, making them great archers and the designated 'magic arrow hoarder' of the group. When the BSF wasn't hitting, usually the Utilitarian picked up the pace. The Utilitarian was also the primary initiator. They could usually one-shot the first enemy that came barrelling towards the group (although in most of my games, I gave everyone ranged weapons, something I also recommend). Other uses for the Utilitarian included picking off enemy spellcasters and archers (while the BSF busied himself with the melee baddies), using stealth to scout ahead (picking off anyone who strayed alone), and laying waste to enemies who were just too tough for the BSF (while I made my BSF play a game of 'cat and mouse' with the big scary monster). The Utilitarian is typically a Rogue, Bard, or Ranger. I think there are occasions where any of these roles shined and any of these roles utterly failed. Furthermore, I've discovered these roles through my personal experience of playing IE games. If you have different opinions about playstyles, I'd love to hear them, that's what this topic is for. In most games, my party build would consist of 2-3 BSF's, 2-3 Spellcasters, and one Utilitarian. So, assuming that the goal is to break from these roles, how can P:E give classes the choices to mix and match these roles or even create new roles? > Personal Ideas Concerning Roles When it comes to the relationship between classes and roles, I absolutely hate how stale builds can become. My favorite pasttime has been experimenting with builds to create quirky mechanics for a character. I remember one build in Pathfinder where I mixed a monk and dragon disciple for a 'glass cannon' character. She was essentially a normal monk that could turn into a dragon and inflict a high damage natural attack combo combined with her normal unarmed damage (never found rules saying that I couldn't use kung-fu as a dragon ;P). And I know for sure in D&D 3.5, there was an incredible diversity in builds. A huge variety of build options were provided with the introduction of new feats and new prestige classes in every book. Even though 3.5 characters spiraled out of control sometimes (templates, oh god the templates), they were also highly varied. I think one of my favorite games for creating builds is League Of Legends. I know it's nothing like an IE game (despite also being a strategy role-playing game), but I think there are still lessons to be learned from the system. First of all, it's possible for some of the quirkiest builds in the game to work effectively, regardless of who you play. Some characters synergized really well with certain items and certain team members. Best of all, some characters have lenient roles. For example, one character named Kayle is known for having the flexibility to be built like a DPS or built like a support. I'm not saying P:E should allow players to create quirky character builds that don't make any sense (ala D&D 3.5), but rather options should be provided to allow characters to fulfill a role in their class' "flavor", For example, if you wanted to play a fighter archer, they would be more focused around different types of archery attacks, where as a ranger archer would be focused around utilizing traps and their animal companion with their archery. Regardless, both would be effective as a ranged damage dealer in their own way. I think when designing their classes, Obsidian designers should consider how a particular class could be built and provide options for those builds. No, it's not possible to identify every little role, but it is possible to provide a diversity at the least. Not all paladins have to be divine melee fighters, why can't they inflict their smite with archery? Not all rogues have to be assassins, why can't they be tankers based on evading attacks? In reference to the IE roles discussed earlier, what if I could utilize a Rogue as a BSF? They wouldn't be the typical 'high armor, high melee damage' character, they would be a BSF in the Rogue-fashion, evading attacks and maybe inflicting sneak attack whenever they 'parry'. Or Mages as Utilitarians? If spells were more accessible or provided more utility, mages could fulfill this role as a secondary damage dealer and jack-of-all-trades. It's going to require careful game design, but I think a move towards 'more roles for any class' will provide an interesting experience for people whether they build for effectiveness or just build for fun. > TL;DR I think P:E should provide more roles (Tanker/DPS/Support) to each class, but those roles should be played different between each class. For example, a Rogue Tanker would be based around evasive maneuvers and sneak attacks 'procing' on successful parries.

There's a fair bit of discussion here about game balance and various subsystems, such as armor, weapons, dual-wielding etc. Josh Sawyer in particular has discussed the utility of skills a fair bit. Magic has been discussed a bit too. One thing that hasn't been done well in any cRPG I've played, though, is situational utility of combat skills (and equipment). I think it would be a great way to add variety to the gameplay and encourage creativity in character and party builds. By situational utility I mean making different types of combat skills be more or less effective in different situations, or against different opponents. I think this sort of thing would be relatively easy to model in a game system, and it would be pretty easy to have them contribute to the verisimilitude of the game as well. A few examples off the top of my head. Large weapons with lots of reach would work better against large creatures and beasts but be significantly hampered in confined spaces. Heavy armor gives a great deal of protection against damage but would take time to equip and would fatigue you more quickly, which means you would only be able to use it if you had time to prepare for combat, and you'd have to find a way to conserve or restore your stamina during combat if it dragged on. A character would need to be physically very strong and fit to be able to manage this, but would not need to be acrobatically nimble. On the other hand, dual-wielding two light weapons gives an advantage to feinting and parrying. This means it's more effective against human(oid)s, but less effective against beasts and suchlike. Dual-wielding requires higher dexterity, which means trading off something else, resulting in a particular type of fighter. His blows are light but precise, and his skills are honed for one-on-one duels with humans. Piercing weapons would be useless against unliving enemies, but perhaps more effective at getting through magical protection; firearms could be a more powerful version of the same, but with slow reload rates. You'd have a better chance against a battlemage with a gun and a rapier than with a longsword or a sling, but you'd be advised to bludgeon a skeleton or a golem into submission rather than trying to ineffectively poke holes into it. If the game system had these types of complexities, and a variety of combat challenges to match them, it would make party and character-building very interesting. One party could be a collection of specialists, with the one with the right skills taking point in each encounter and the others moving to support her; another could go for a set of well-rounded characters able to perform at their best in most situations, and would use that tactically to their advantage. Both would be viable strategies for victory, but would require very different tactics. Additionally, no build would be objectively better in all circumstances. Our nimble dual-wielding Scaramouche might be able to best heavily-armored Sir George of Joustalot in a duel, with a skilful stab in a vulnerable spot -- but Sir George would run a raging magic giant wild boar right through with his lance where Scaramouche's best bet for survival would be to climb a tree. N.b.: I'm not arguing for any of these mechanics specifically; rather, I would like to see a system of mechanics balanced out to function differently in different circumstances. I don't really care about the details. Thoughts?