Druids, Monks and Rangers - Issues

[Alexjh]

Since you bring up Airbender, thats actually one way of doing Druids that'd be quite a different take, focus on the normal elements of nature (plant, earth, water, air, ice, sand etc) and focus on manipulating the stuff in the environment around you rather than actually brining anything new forth (like a wizard would). You'd probably want to ditch the shapeshifting angle if you were going that route, as it'd be a very "busy" class otherwise though. Only manipulating the elements present around you (so no snow in the desert etc) and perhaps based on a similar system to how warlocks worked in NWN2, ie forming you attacks into shapes ie cone of ice/sand/earth/vines or immobilising mud/rocks and so on. Lower damage potential and less overall versatiliy than wizard but no limit to uses/day or /mana or whatever.

[Umberlin]

In regard to the Druid my solution to shape shifting is to either not, or to really make the player choose.

 

Personally I always prefered the idea of a few very specific forms. Two, maybe three animals to choose from and you pick one of those. Then specialize in that one animal form. Upgrade it. Modify it. Advance it. Gain abilities related to it. As you get better allow for a Hybrid of your base form and the animal form, a war form of sorts. Allow for partial shape shiftings, like your character growing claws or teeth, for quick access to extra damage in a pinch, and have it take less time than a full transformation - for those times when you're caught with your pants down (so to speak). Instead of nature magic as spells, use it to enhance your transformation into this animal, or the hybrid state, to make it better than it would be otherwise. Regeneration. Making your claws stronger than normal claws. Tough hide. Superior strength or speed or dexterity. And so on. Instead of spells, think of new ways to use and enhance the form you've picked, and those are now your abilities.No need for normal spells.

 

Want to be a true spell casting Druid you say? Tough. If you wanted to be a spell casting Druid you shouldn't have specialized toward being a shape shifting Druid. I beleive in this separation. I don't believe a Druid should be casting spells in animal form, and I don't believe a shape shifting druid should be competent as nature magic in the way of spell casting focused Druid.

 

We could skip silly ideas like Druids casting spells in animal form entirely. Different paths within one class. Let the spell casting Druids be spell casting Druids. Let the Shape Shifting Druids really specialize in a form and make it more than just, "I turn into a wolf" and prevent it from escalating into, "I turn into a Dragon!"

Edited November 15, 2012 by Umberlin

[Alexjh]

Umberlin: I do like the idea of having a single form/variations thereof, but I'd rather there was a bigger selection than two or three to choose from, because you know almost exactly what those choices would be, and there are other interesting creatures in the world than wolf, big cat or bear which is what it always is. Not that those are bad, but I like to have other choices too.

 

I'd go with a list something like, Wolf, Bear, Panther, Boar, (Giant) Spider, (Giant) Raven, Badger/Wolverine, (Giant) Snake, (Giant) Bat, (Giant) Owl etc. Maybe something unusual like a bison or auroch kind of thing.

 

While the first few would be fairly obvious in terms of being very much direct combat orientated, you could have some fun with the later ones, owl gets big bonus to spot and move silently, snake gets poison and regenerate, bat gets automatic detect invisibility/stealth (from their sonar) and so on.

 

Edit:

Perhaps you could pick an "order" at character creation, something like "order of claw" "order of feathers" and "order of venom" which give you access to slightly different spells each (similar to mage schools) and then when you get to the point where you can shapechange, you pick an animal within that school as both your form and your companion, and while the general schools would give you some general bonuses (order of claws would be melee focused for instance) the animal you chose would give you further specific bonuses - wolf some kind of group buff, bear to strength and fortitude, panther to stealth and critical or something. This gives the player a little more time to decide what they want.

 

Personally, I'm kind of liking the idea now of an owl-themed druid...

Edited November 15, 2012 by Alexjh

[Umberlin]

Umberlin: I do like the idea of having a single form/variations thereof, but I'd rather there was a bigger selection than two or three to choose from, because you know almost exactly what those choices would be, and there are other interesting creatures in the world than wolf, big cat or bear which is what it always is. Not that those are bad, but I like to have other choices too.

 

If we're talking giving the forms any depth, then any month than tow, three, maybe four seems unwise. Too readily it would fall into 'copy paste' territory, and 'quantity without quality' territory. I'd rather a few forms with deep and interesting specialization options to a great deal of forms with low to no quality, or, worse, copy paste quality. That's my entire reason for keeping it down to just a very few, bare minimum forms, to choose between, only one, thay are then outfitted with the ability to upgrade, modify and specialize in them to a great degree.

 

I'd go with a list something like, Wolf, Bear, Panther, Boar, (Giant) Spider, (Giant) Raven, Badger/Wolverine, (Giant) Snake, (Giant) Bat, (Giant) Owl etc. Maybe something unusual like a bison or auroch kind of thing.

 

While the first few would be fairly obvious in terms of being very much direct combat orientated, you could have some fun with the later ones, owl gets big bonus to spot and move silently, snake gets poison and regenerate, bat gets automatic detect invisibility/stealth (from their sonar) and so on.

 

On the other hand, I don't disagree with you that having very few options could easily lead to them just using the very 'typical' choices (wolf/bear/some form of large cat). In that regard, I actually do understand and sympathize with the point you're trying to make, so, please, don't think for a second I'm dismissing your concern, nor your want for variety in forms. I'm simply, as always, more concerned with the quality of what is there.

 

Edit:

Perhaps you could pick an "order" at character creation, something like "order of claw" "order of feathers" and "order of venom" which give you access to slightly different spells each (similar to mage schools) and then when you get to the point where you can shapechange, you pick an animal within that school as both your form and your companion, and while the general schools would give you some general bonuses (order of claws would be melee focused for instance) the animal you chose would give you further specific bonuses - wolf some kind of group buff, bear to strength and fortitude, panther to stealth and critical or something. This gives the player a little more time to decide what they want.

 

Personally, I'm kind of liking the idea now of an owl-themed druid...

 

Sort of like a Cleric Domain sort of deal, only with forms/spell types?

 

You could go beyond the animal forms with that, actually. I talked about the difference between a spell casting Druid and shape shifting Druid, and I wholly believe in that separation. I also like the idea of a, somewhat, Domain like system where the Druids represent different 'natural areas' of the world; keeping it within the range of areas you'd practically find within the areas of the game world we're exploring.

 

A Territory system could define which type of Shape Shifting Druid and which type of Spell Casting Druid you were, and thus what elements/animals you were pulling from. I'm curious what a Desert themed Druid would have at their beck and call, in terms of Shape Shifting Druids and Spell Casting Druids. It would act like the school system, after a fashion, you were talking about, but concentrated more on the nature element - where a Druid and their magical abilities or shape shifting abilities would be dictated by the type of natural territory the Druid represented.

 

In terms of Shape Shifting different territories could be represented by a key animal, of sorts, so one territory might typically be represented by a wolf, another 'this' and another 'that' perhaps a desert snake, of some sort, for a desert territory. Then apply similar thinking to the Druid spell casting system, 'these types of spells represent that territory' so a spell that buffeted you with wind and skin shredding sand might be representative of a Desert territory (just an example, and obviously, again, let's stick to territories we're actually going to be seeing in the actual game world).

 

Still, I imagine some people would dislike their magical or shape shifting abilities be limited by a particular area their Druid represented ('druid of the desert' or 'druid of the forest' or 'taiga druid' or 'swamp druid' and so on), so it's likely completely moot to bring up.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Umberlin

[Alexjh]

Umberlin: I do like the idea of having a single form/variations thereof, but I'd rather there was a bigger selection than two or three to choose from, because you know almost exactly what those choices would be, and there are other interesting creatures in the world than wolf, big cat or bear which is what it always is. Not that those are bad, but I like to have other choices too.

 

If we're talking giving the forms any depth, then any month than tow, three, maybe four seems unwise. Too readily it would fall into 'copy paste' territory, and 'quantity without quality' territory. I'd rather a few forms with deep and interesting specialization options to a great deal of forms with low to no quality, or, worse, copy paste quality. That's my entire reason for keeping it down to just a very few, bare minimum forms, to choose between, only one, thay are then outfitted with the ability to upgrade, modify and specialize in them to a great degree.

 

I'd go with a list something like, Wolf, Bear, Panther, Boar, (Giant) Spider, (Giant) Raven, Badger/Wolverine, (Giant) Snake, (Giant) Bat, (Giant) Owl etc. Maybe something unusual like a bison or auroch kind of thing.

 

While the first few would be fairly obvious in terms of being very much direct combat orientated, you could have some fun with the later ones, owl gets big bonus to spot and move silently, snake gets poison and regenerate, bat gets automatic detect invisibility/stealth (from their sonar) and so on.

 

On the other hand, I don't disagree with you that having very few options could easily lead to them just using the very 'typical' choices (wolf/bear/some form of large cat). In that regard, I actually do understand and sympathize with the point you're trying to make, so, please, don't think for a second I'm dismissing your concern, nor your want for variety in forms. I'm simply, as always, more concerned with the quality of what is there.

 

Edit:

Perhaps you could pick an "order" at character creation, something like "order of claw" "order of feathers" and "order of venom" which give you access to slightly different spells each (similar to mage schools) and then when you get to the point where you can shapechange, you pick an animal within that school as both your form and your companion, and while the general schools would give you some general bonuses (order of claws would be melee focused for instance) the animal you chose would give you further specific bonuses - wolf some kind of group buff, bear to strength and fortitude, panther to stealth and critical or something. This gives the player a little more time to decide what they want.

 

Personally, I'm kind of liking the idea now of an owl-themed druid...

 

Sort of like a Cleric Domain sort of deal, only with forms/spell types?

 

You could go beyond the animal forms with that, actually. I talked about the difference between a spell casting Druid and shape shifting Druid, and I wholly believe in that separation. I also like the idea of a, somewhat, Domain like system where the Druids represent different 'natural areas' of the world; keeping it within the range of areas you'd practically find within the areas of the game world we're exploring.

 

A Territory system could define which type of Shape Shifting Druid and which type of Spell Casting Druid you were, and thus what elements/animals you were pulling from. I'm curious what a Desert themed Druid would have at their beck and call, in terms of Shape Shifting Druids and Spell Casting Druids. It would act like the school system, after a fashion, you were talking about, but concentrated more on the nature element - where a Druid and their magical abilities or shape shifting abilities would be dictated by the type of natural territory the Druid represented.

 

In terms of Shape Shifting different territories could be represented by a key animal, of sorts, so one territory might typically be represented by a wolf, another 'this' and another 'that' perhaps a desert snake, of some sort, for a desert territory. Then apply similar thinking to the Druid spell casting system, 'these types of spells represent that territory' so a spell that buffeted you with wind and skin shredding sand might be representative of a Desert territory (just an example, and obviously, again, let's stick to territories we're actually going to be seeing in the actual game world).

 

Still, I imagine some people would dislike their magical or shape shifting abilities be limited by a particular area their Druid represented ('druid of the desert' or 'druid of the forest' or 'taiga druid' or 'swamp druid' and so on), so it's likely completely moot to bring up.

 

If you were doing habitat themed "domains" that might be a place to bring in the warlock style casting I was playing around with earlier. If you had, a selection of casting "shapes" (cone, beam, wall, entangling, blast, "dagger spray" etc) and each of the habitats was associated with one particular element which had a themed version of each of those shapes, so the tundra one would be ice and get to do ice themed versions of those shapes, mixed in with some general druidic spells. You could then choose to develop your thematic form (perhaps polar bear in this case) or focus on spells, plus to keep it from just being a palette swap, some unique abilities each, and different status effects. Other domains could have the associations with vines or sand or mud like you mentioned.

 

Would certainly produce a very different tone to D&D druids while still retaining the basic themes.

[Umberlin]

If you were doing habitat themed "domains" that might be a place to bring in the warlock style casting I was playing around with earlier. If you had, a selection of casting "shapes" (cone, beam, wall, entangling, blast, "dagger spray" etc) and each of the habitats was associated with one particular element which had a themed version of each of those shapes, so the tundra one would be ice and get to do ice themed versions of those shapes, mixed in with some general druidic spells. You could then choose to develop your thematic form (perhaps polar bear in this case) or focus on spells, plus to keep it from just being a palette swap, some unique abilities each, and different status effects. Other domains could have the associations with vines or sand or mud like you mentioned.

 

Would certainly produce a very different tone to D&D druids while still retaining the basic themes.

 

I see what you're getting at, with a blast shape styled approach to spell casting you get your variety of spells/spell types, but also the ability to layer different territory/domain types over them to different visual effect. The blast shape system, whatever its flaws, was still a solid system, and it would allow a developer to more efficiently use their resources, as they wouldn't have to create wholly unique spell types to each individual territory/domain type. More bang for your buck, so to speak, but without a sacrifice in quality. The system wouldn't even have to perfectly mirror the blast shape system, just take notes on the key things that made it work, heck, you could even fix some of the weaker points.

 

So, let's talk a base blast shape, your cone for instance: The Taiga Druid would take that cone, and it would be a cold cone blast. The Desert Druid would take that cone and result in a Sand Cone Blast. And, like you said, depending on the territory type, you could bring in various other relevant (to a given territory) effects to flesh out the system. Then you could bring in other blast shapes and go from there. You could even take the base theme, the type of damage they'd typically be using, and add a secondary effect onto them related to a given territory (slows or bleeds or what have you).

 

You're quite right that it would produce a very different tone, to the D&D Druid, but, I also agree, that you could still get something very Druidic out of it if you combined that idea with the Shape Shifting ideas. Thanks for reminded me of the Blast Shapes Warlocks used. I never got into them much, but it was an interesting system that, again, despite any flaws, had interesting merits that shouldn't be ignored.

 

-

 

They probably won't be doing anything like this, of course, but it's still fun to talk about.

[Alexjh]

 

I see what you're getting at, with a blast shape styled approach to spell casting you get your variety of spells/spell types, but also the ability to layer different territory/domain types over them to different visual effect. The blast shape system, whatever its flaws, was still a solid system, and it would allow a developer to more efficiently use their resources, as they wouldn't have to create wholly unique spell types to each individual territory/domain type. More bang for your buck, so to speak, but without a sacrifice in quality. The system wouldn't even have to perfectly mirror the blast shape system, just take notes on the key things that made it work, heck, you could even fix some of the weaker points.

 

So, let's talk a base blast shape, your cone for instance: The Taiga Druid would take that cone, and it would be a cold cone blast. The Desert Druid would take that cone and result in a Sand Cone Blast. And, like you said, depending on the territory type, you could bring in various other relevant (to a given territory) effects to flesh out the system. Then you could bring in other blast shapes and go from there. You could even take the base theme, the type of damage they'd typically be using, and add a secondary effect onto them related to a given territory (slows or bleeds or what have you).

 

You're quite right that it would produce a very different tone, to the D&D Druid, but, I also agree, that you could still get something very Druidic out of it if you combined that idea with the Shape Shifting ideas. Thanks for reminded me of the Blast Shapes Warlocks used. I never got into them much, but it was an interesting system that, again, despite any flaws, had interesting merits that shouldn't be ignored.

 

 

I never managed to get into them either I have to say at least as they were in NWN2, but the basic principle of them seemed like a very interesting and very different approach to spellcasting. I think the key though would be making sure they didn't end up too much like wizards as overly offense based spellcasters. I'd like to try and mix in things similar to what I consider "classic" D&D Druid spells - the key ones I'd say would include things like:

 

Healing

Poison

Entangle

Shillelagh

Charm Animal (turn into an ability rather than a spell?)

Barkskin (habititat flavoured version? sandskin, frostskin etc)

Spike Growth

Insect Plague

Summon elemental (something a bit more subtle than the big golems of element x for preference)

Contagion

 

Things like that can't really be simulated in the shapes system, but perhaps could be integrated in other ways into the spell system.

[Umberlin]

I see what you're getting at, with a blast shape styled approach to spell casting you get your variety of spells/spell types, but also the ability to layer different territory/domain types over them to different visual effect. The blast shape system, whatever its flaws, was still a solid system, and it would allow a developer to more efficiently use their resources, as they wouldn't have to create wholly unique spell types to each individual territory/domain type. More bang for your buck, so to speak, but without a sacrifice in quality. The system wouldn't even have to perfectly mirror the blast shape system, just take notes on the key things that made it work, heck, you could even fix some of the weaker points.

 

So, let's talk a base blast shape, your cone for instance: The Taiga Druid would take that cone, and it would be a cold cone blast. The Desert Druid would take that cone and result in a Sand Cone Blast. And, like you said, depending on the territory type, you could bring in various other relevant (to a given territory) effects to flesh out the system. Then you could bring in other blast shapes and go from there. You could even take the base theme, the type of damage they'd typically be using, and add a secondary effect onto them related to a given territory (slows or bleeds or what have you).

 

You're quite right that it would produce a very different tone, to the D&D Druid, but, I also agree, that you could still get something very Druidic out of it if you combined that idea with the Shape Shifting ideas. Thanks for reminded me of the Blast Shapes Warlocks used. I never got into them much, but it was an interesting system that, again, despite any flaws, had interesting merits that shouldn't be ignored.

 

 

I never managed to get into them either I have to say at least as they were in NWN2, but the basic principle of them seemed like a very interesting and very different approach to spellcasting. I think the key though would be making sure they didn't end up too much like wizards as overly offense based spellcasters. I'd like to try and mix in things similar to what I consider "classic" D&D Druid spells - the key ones I'd say would include things like:

 

Healing

Poison

Entangle

Shillelagh

Charm Animal (turn into an ability rather than a spell?)

Barkskin (habititat flavoured version? sandskin, frostskin etc)

Spike Growth

Insect Plague

Summon elemental (something a bit more subtle than the big golems of element x for preference)

Contagion

 

Things like that can't really be simulated in the shapes system, but perhaps could be integrated in other ways into the spell system.

 

Well even Warlocks went beyond the shape system, since we're talking NWN2, to keeps things familiar, my example would be summoning a pet or a wall of weird blue flames or a wall of icky blast tentacles and so on. They even had long lasting self buffs. So even the warlock broke away from blast shape invovations with essences etc etc.

 

You could design it, in theory, to use the blast shape systme as a standard action approach to their gameplay with the more individual abilities as more powerful, but also more limited/costly efforts. So let's say the NWN2 pet example for the Warlock and your note on Summon Elemental and twist it into the territory system we already spoke on. Some limiter or costly resource helps bring forth the pet, but it's based on your territory rather than being a simple 'summon elemental' with each territory have their own representative 'guardian' to summon. So desert druid example, you summon forth a guardian related to that territory, not necessarily an elemental, but practical and relevant to the costly nature.

 

You could apply the territory system to charm animal in a similar way, only having domain over the relevant types of animals. Entangle and Poison, on the other hand, might be examples of territory specific abilities. Perhaps Swamp gets poison and jungle gets entangle, just as an example. The defensives like Barkskin could also be territory specific, with each territory having their own defensive ability.

 

Healing is a tough nut. I get the idea healing won't function in the same way in P:E at all, so I expect regardless of the system they choose that it will be quite different. In a way that's probably for the best. Personally I'd prefer regenerative healing, rather than reactive healing, be associated with Druids . . . but that's a wholly personal call. I'm sure whatever they end up doing will work just fine. I'm curious if you could make it work inside the territory or blast shape systems we've been talking about. I mean, technically, you could apply any effect to a blast shape, with the real change being the target of the blast shape. Even the Warlock's offensive blast shapes could carry more than simple damage, for example fear or sickening effects. The druid might not do the Fear thing specifically, but if we're talking a contagion . . . well I think you see where I'm going with that. Not necessarily the same, but not wholly different either.

[Alexjh]

That's always one of the slightly interesting things about the monk class, that of all the classes they are one without really any grounding in European history or literature. Probably because Christianity evolved into a fairly martial religion anyway during the middle ages despite ostensiably being a peaceful one, the discipline and learning side was fairly detatched from the violent side. I guess is you were looking for something like a hyper-disciplined warrior ethos the closest I can think of offhand would be sparta or maybe the romans, although they'd very much be fighters more than monks. You can probably imagine little cults based on some of the older religion with martial-religious orders, but probably based on specific weapons rather than unarmed.

 

As for P:E monks, I guess one thing that could be core to the class would be a greater ability to disarm relative to other classes, perhaps even an ability where they "confiscate" the weapon of an opponent to use against them. I do feel that monks as a class work better when they are specifically controlling the battlefield more carefully than the other melee fighters would, using stunning attacks, disarming, perhaps 1 hit KOing a wizard with a quivering palm like thing and then dashing (or perhaps wuxia cinema style leaping...) to the next target. That could be quite fun actually: if you leap over the battle, you get the bonus of never being exposed to attacks of opportunity and looking really cool while at it, perhaps a damage bonus on that initial flying strike.

[Chilloutman]

Missing point of this thread as there is already separate thread for each of this classes

[Alexjh]

Well I originally posted it because they all had some things in common: historical design issues and not being talked about by Obsidian yet, so it made more sense to clump them together than post them in 3 separate (at the time, dead) threads.

 

Equally interesting is why you posted this is a thread which no one has posted in for three days?

 

Anyways, as you did bring it back, I'll quickly add to it - one thing that would help out the druid I've realised (having revisited it in IWD2) is if, like the monk, it's wildshape form was treated as magical attacks for the purpose of hitting enemies as they go up in level. I'd assume that as you level up you are not just levelling up as a panther/bear/guinea pig but as a slightly magical one, thus meaning that wildshape never becomes irrelevant against high level enemies.

 

Also on the theme of Druid spellcasting, another possibility I was considering instead of the habitat based one would be doing a season themed one, with each season getting two elements, winter getting cold and wind, spring getting cold and plants, summer getting plants and sand/earth, autumn getting earth and wind or something to that vague effect.

 

As for monks, one thing that'd definitly be fun to bring back is the ability to catch/deflect/redirect projactiles. I've a vague recollection something of that sort being in NWN, but its the sort of thing that'd add alternative tactical options when facing archers and such. Perhaps high level ones might even learn to redirect magical projectiles, I like the idea of a max level monk being able to swing the trajectory of a fireball back at a casters own men.

[Hertzila]

For monks, I'd say a bit of a redefinition from an unarmed class into a specialist class would be in order. Have them be the guys using more exotic/strange weapons, more about body control and mastery of one's body rather than a pinnacle of weapon/fighting skill fighters would have. Have monks do more irregular fighting styles, dabble in martial arts and such. Fighters would kick and grab too but monks would combine that and a lot of other things together. Coupled with PE's soul abilities for chi attack stuff, a very different fighting style that would include specialist attacks, exotic weaponry, martial arts and chi attacks would be very possible.

 

Druids, I'd say go with the system Alexjh and Umberlin have devised. Focus on a specific animal form that upgrades alongside the character and couple it with a differing way to use magic.

 

I honestly don't have much for rangers. I'd suggest them being more like advanced scouts, expert woodsmen/hikers/wanderers and excellent skirmishers rather than somehow magically having a connection to the forests and an animal companion. That's more of a druids shtick. Give some power to the city/desert rangers too.

[Sacred_Path]

Right now it seems fighters are the best tanks, I really hope it will stay that way and not monks being great tanks due to "natural armor" or similar derp.

 

I think rangers need a good backstory, and I don't think I've ever read one (one that explains all their abilities and habits). They have been called elite soldiers, bounty hunters and hermits, but none of that is quite congruent with what they do.

[Alexjh]

Right now it seems fighters are the best tanks, I really hope it will stay that way and not monks being great tanks due to "natural armor" or similar derp.

 

I think rangers need a good backstory, and I don't think I've ever read one (one that explains all their abilities and habits). They have been called elite soldiers, bounty hunters and hermits, but none of that is quite congruent with what they do.

 

I think you have to consider what exactly you mean by tank there, if you mean in the general sense of "a tough character to draw attention from others" I don't think thats outside their remit, but the way they do it should be different to a way a fighter or barbarian does it. Fighters most obviously function in that role because their armour prevents them getting hit/damaged, while a barbarian should be getting hit fairly often, it's his high HP and/or damage resistance (which I choose to interpret as them being badass enough to shrug off minor wounds).

 

Monks in contrast, if tanking, should be doing so because they are never actually getting hit, in D&D because of a mixture of high dexterity and their WIS armour bonus allowing them to anticipate incoming attacks enough to get out the way, which is fine given thats the standard route they go in any martial arts film, which the class is based off. But if they do get hit it should be serious. Whether P:E will have something equivical to that remains to be seen.

 

I don't think rangers necessarily need a general backstory (although specific orders of them might) as such as its more a "role" like fighter and rogue than a specific "profession" like monks, paladins or clerics. Realistically there are several forms of ranger that fall within their remit: the classic originator one of resembling Aragorn is more or less a man or woman whose job it is to protect a certain area of wilderness. This could be that it's a stretch of wilderness borders on an enemy territory or one that is prone to monster infestations. I'd argue the premise is largely that of a guerilla fighter and you could just as easily have the monster hunting model of the class as someone who just happens to live in a cabin in the woods and resorts to the same tactics to defend themselves. I reckon while there might certainly be specific orders of Rangers in P:E perhaps with specific benefits/focuses, it shouldn't by any means be an exclusive class, just any mobile fighter who uses the natural environment to his advantage.

[anubite]

Itemization I agree is going to be a BIG, BIG thing for Obsidian to get right.

 

We are going to need robes for monks that are interesting and viable and tactically powerful.

 

Robes that allow monks to utilize some amount of evasion/dodge

Robes that allow monks to utilize some amount of counter-attack/parry

Robes that improve physical damage and support/utility

Robes that allow monks to absorb damage like a chain mail/plate fighter, in some capacity

etc

 

So that monks can be built in a variety of defensive ways to suit their designated role in combat.

 

Monks should also be able to specialize in staves, which would greatly improve upon their possible itemization. We will also of course want items which improve Monk unarmed damage, such as wristbands or rings. No need to make Monks entirely non-gear dependent. I don't see why Monks should be the only class that can go unarmed and have viable damage. Fighters/Rogues should probably have a more narrow scope for unarmed specialization, but it should be possible, nevertheless.

 

Although this is probably outside the scope of Project Eternity, in theory, monks would also be suitable for any kind of 'unusual' marital weapon. If unarmed is going to be too hard to balance/design, you could just introduce nun-chucks, dan bong, bokken, escrima, scythe + chain, sai - and make one or two of those the default monk weapon. Actually, all of those weapons serve rather unique purposes which would definitely give the Monk a unique role in combat.

 

nun-chuck - high stun rate vs enemies? brutal bashing damage with high attack rate

dan bong - very, very fast short melee weapon, excellent for locking up joints, countering and hard very fast strikes, would be great as a utility weapon

escrima - excellent for controlling/countering one-handed weapons

scythe + chain - long reach, ability to disarm opponents

sai - excellent parrying/defensive weapon

 

Of course, most Western viewers might feel a little silly using them, believing these weapons work, but they do. Even though most are wooden, they are very effective against all kinds of targets. Even in heavy armor, it's hard to prevent yourself from being stunned by these weapons, which are very cheap and easy to disguise on your person (most were originally farming tools, which is their origin).

Edited November 24, 2012 by anubite

[Sacred_Path]

Monks in contrast, if tanking, should be doing so because they are never actually getting hit, in D&D because of a mixture of high dexterity and their WIS armour bonus allowing them to anticipate incoming attacks enough to get out the way, which is fine given thats the standard route they go in any martial arts film, which the class is based off. But if they do get hit it should be serious. Whether P:E will have something equivical to that remains to be serious.

 

Really, the consequences of going unarmored should prohibit tanking IMO. Dodging gets v. hard as soon as you're facing multiple foes in a crowded area. The only situation I can imagine is monks "tanking" against magic users. That could be their domain.

 

I don't think rangers necessarily need a general backstory (although specific orders of them might) as such as its more a "role" like fighter and rogue than a specific "profession" like monks, paladins or clerics. Realistically there are several forms of ranger that fall within their remit: the classic originator one of resembling Aragorn is more or less a man or woman whose job it is to protect a certain area of wilderness. This could be that it's a stretch of wilderness borders on an enemy territory or one that is prone to monster infestations.

 

Though there are two things to say about Tolkien's Dunedain rangers:

 

1) They have a very detailed backstory

 

2) it's still p. horrible

 

I know classes like the rogue don't have a general backstory either, but their concept is more self-explanatory

[Alexjh]

Monks in contrast, if tanking, should be doing so because they are never actually getting hit, in D&D because of a mixture of high dexterity and their WIS armour bonus allowing them to anticipate incoming attacks enough to get out the way, which is fine given thats the standard route they go in any martial arts film, which the class is based off. But if they do get hit it should be serious. Whether P:E will have something equivical to that remains to be serious.

 

Really, the consequences of going unarmored should prohibit tanking IMO. Dodging gets v. hard as soon as you're facing multiple foes in a crowded area. The only situation I can imagine is monks "tanking" against magic users. That could be their domain.

 

I don't think rangers necessarily need a general backstory (although specific orders of them might) as such as its more a "role" like fighter and rogue than a specific "profession" like monks, paladins or clerics. Realistically there are several forms of ranger that fall within their remit: the classic originator one of resembling Aragorn is more or less a man or woman whose job it is to protect a certain area of wilderness. This could be that it's a stretch of wilderness borders on an enemy territory or one that is prone to monster infestations.

 

Though there are two things to say about Tolkien's Dunedain rangers:

 

1) They have a very detailed backstory

 

2) it's still p. horrible

 

I know classes like the rogue don't have a general backstory either, but their concept is more self-explanatory

 

If this was a non-fantasy game we were dealing with I'd agree with the monk being not that great at dodging because proportionatly dodging isn't that practical compared to say, a crossbow bolt. HOWEVER this is a fantasy setting where we have people who can smite people with pure force of will, channel their devotion to their god, empower people with storytelling or blast fire from their hands, I'm quite happy to believe that people can can train themselves into having superhuman dodging powers.

 

As for the backstory of rangers, it can just as equally be a backstory about any guerilla fighters in the world, or, for an actual organised one something like the original purpose of the Canadian Mountain Police.

[forgottenlor]

If P:E allows very flexable classes, the question is if any of these classes are necessary or desirable. D&D has rather static classes. In fact the newested edition has 4 "real classes" the Striker, Controller, Leader, and Defender, and everything else is simply a variation thereof. If a Rogue or Warrior can be made into a sneaky archer, do you need a ranger? What can the Druid offer that a Wizard or Priest cannot? Or can you simply choose something like that in one of the other classes?

 

Or do you makes these classes into what they were in the MIGHT and MAGIC series, namely the Druid was a mage/cleric, and the archer a fighter/mage?

[Alexjh]

If P:E allows very flexable classes, the question is if any of these classes are necessary or desirable. D&D has rather static classes. In fact the newested edition has 4 "real classes" the Striker, Controller, Leader, and Defender, and everything else is simply a variation thereof. If a Rogue or Warrior can be made into a sneaky archer, do you need a ranger? What can the Druid offer that a Wizard or Priest cannot? Or can you simply choose something like that in one of the other classes?

 

Or do you makes these classes into what they were in the MIGHT and MAGIC series, namely the Druid was a mage/cleric, and the archer a fighter/mage?

 

I think you are mistaking combat roles with classes a little, and while certainly classes tend to fall into variations of the core 4, the reason more exist is down to nuance and "flavour" of a character rather than pure mechanical optimal party roles. Sure a fighter may be the best no-frills melee class for instance, but in my many playthroughs of the Icewind Dale games it is by far my least used class purely because it doesn't have that "flavour" to it. Beyond that, I prefer Monks, Paladins, Rangers and Barbarians to exist as seperate entities because they do have mechanical differences, strengths and weaknesses. If you have a front line consisting entirely of rangers for instance, your front line will be fairly soft defensively but more versatile that a wall of paladins. Part of the whole fun of the Infinity Engine was making a carefully constructed party to your personal playstyle - with more limited classes you lose that, even if you still have all the internal features of those available within a "fighter" class it removes a layer of tactical party building because you aren't forced to choose so much.

[anubite]

Classes exist as broad umbrellas. Sure, I think there's going to be overlap between the traditional class idea of a "ranger" and a rogue who's simply using a bow. But the way classes should probably work is:

 

Ranger is better with bow physical damage.

Rogue with bow has utility (stealth/pick pocket/diplomacy/lock pick) and possibly unique bow-rogue skills that offer support, and maybe even the Rogue has superior poison damage with a bow, compared to a Ranger. Maybe the Ranger is better with traps and pets, the Rogue can actually switch out his Bow to a melee weapon in melee combat (perhaps he has a high parry/weapon block rate) to survive (and let's imagine in PE that standing there and taking it as a ranger sucks).

 

The point being, you can pick a ranger with a bow if you want physical bow damage at its maximum - which may be vital to your group if the rest of your party sucks against a certain type of monster which is weak to physical projectile/piercing damage. You may want a bow-rogue if you need poison damage to take out poison-vulnerable foes, for instance.

 

Classes are broad umbrellas, specialization takes a class and gives it a very narrow role in group play. If a ranger and a bow-rogue are virtually indistinguishable then there is probably something wrong with said game's class or combat system. If there is no overlap at all... well I'd say that's pretty unusual, but maybe it's not a bad thing.

Edited November 24, 2012 by anubite

[forgottenlor]

I think you are mistaking combat roles with classes a little, and while certainly classes tend to fall into variations of the core 4, the reason more exist is down to nuance and "flavour" of a character rather than pure mechanical optimal party roles

 

In a pen and paper roll playing game, classes tend to spend a lot of time out of combat and be able to make use of their flavour more. Rangers can help the players find where they are going, avoid dangerous areas and the like. Druid's control of animals and shapechange adds a lot of possibilities.

 

I find that is CRPGS alot of this is missing,mostly because combat is predominant, and noncombat situations and options limited. In the Icewind Dale games, for example, you spend most of your time in tactical combat, and don't use your skills so much. This makes the combat role much more important and the differences between a druid and a cleric much less than they would be in a pen & paper game. I'd really like to see each class offer more than a cosmetic difference.

[Alexjh]

I think you are mistaking combat roles with classes a little, and while certainly classes tend to fall into variations of the core 4, the reason more exist is down to nuance and "flavour" of a character rather than pure mechanical optimal party roles

 

In a pen and paper roll playing game, classes tend to spend a lot of time out of combat and be able to make use of their flavour more. Rangers can help the players find where they are going, avoid dangerous areas and the like. Druid's control of animals and shapechange adds a lot of possibilities.

 

I find that is CRPGS alot of this is missing,mostly because combat is predominant, and noncombat situations and options limited. In the Icewind Dale games, for example, you spend most of your time in tactical combat, and don't use your skills so much. This makes the combat role much more important and the differences between a druid and a cleric much less than they would be in a pen & paper game. I'd really like to see each class offer more than a cosmetic difference.

 

Certainly, although I think in Icewind Dale 2, the differences were decent enough between cleric and druid to justify separate classes, clerics were heavy armoured front line fighters with healing and defensive spells, druids were more lightly armoured, had wildshape which was actually quite useful, particularly in the first half the game, and had far more offensive spells but fewer defensive ones. I think the main issue, which we've discussed in this thread a bit already, is just taking it that bit further - making wildshape stay as a fundemental vital class feature rather than becoming more of a gimmick as you level, and just pushing them apart that much further.

[Chilloutman]

_{I think that GW2 make it great that each profession have different skills with same weapon. That way you can clearly distinguish different use of profesions even with same weapon or combat style.}

 

I know its MMO and combat is much more action oriented but one thing they done right is how greatly they distinguish each class for its own uniquenes,

 

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_ranger_skills

 

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_thief_skills

[AwesomeOcelot]

I know its MMO and combat is much more action oriented but one thing they done right is how greatly they distinguish each class for its own uniquenes,

 

MMO, generally the opposite of more action oriented.

[Osvir]

^Guild Wars 2, from the little I've read/seen of it is action oriented unlike many games before it. It looks like a legit game. I think AngryJoe's presentation and "image" is obnoxious but he sells his product and his reviews are still good imo and he has good valid points <- About having an open mind, I reckon many here dislike AngryJoe "just because".

 

After seeing this review I really wanted Guild Wars 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax-_06Acj8Y

 

Re-watching this review I'm thinking about this (Wall of text) regarding weapon skills, this review inspired me.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Osvir