Are we getting the PE we were led to believe was on the horizon during the KS?

[Elerond]

To be fair, there is a 5% chance to miss.

 

And chance get bigger if you go against opponets above of your level.

 

In my opinion proposed system is very intriguing as it lowers luck's impact in the combat and forces player use more complex tactics and have actual knowledge how things work in the combat.

[Chrononaut]

Low-level D&D is fun for me, I thought it was fun how weak you were at first, how easy it was to be one-shotted because you failed a saving throw, I also thought combat rounds gave a nice rhythm to the combat which pure real-time lacks.  I don't need anyone telling me that I didn't have fun with BG and IWD because BLARG BLARG IT'S NOT MATHEMATICALLY BALANCED AND IT'S ACTUALLY POSSIBLE TO MAKE A **** CHARACTER, BTW READ MY 2000 WORD ESSAY ON WHY D&D SUCKS.... So yeah shoot me for enjoying those games and then spending money in the hopes of another one like it, only to get the "Oh bro you didn't get the memo, you didn't actually have fun with those games, those games actually sucked, but the graphics were cool so we'll keep those, thanks for the dosh though man!"

[Gfted1]

 

To be fair, there is a 5% chance to miss.

 

And chance get bigger if you go against opponets above of your level.

 

But this will probably only occur if you go off the critical path.

 

In my opinion proposed system is very intriguing as it lowers luck's impact in the combat and forces player use more complex tactics and have actual knowledge how things work in the combat.

Remove "chance"? Absolutely. It will have no impact on tactics as far as I can see.

[Infinitron]

And no one should have to restart the game with a different character because they made a character that isn't working out for them, it's not like RPG's are designed around re-playability or anything amirite

 

 

On the contrary, the imbalanced games that you venerate have less room for replayability. What happens in games with "correct" or "incorrect" character builds is that after a few restarts, everybody learns The One True Character Build for their class and they stick to that. There's no room for any variations. How is that good for replayability?

 

Yes, the first time you played Fallout it was hard. Then you read a FAQ, learned how to create a munchkin diplomat-sniper character and every single playthrough since then has been with that character, barring gimmick playthroughs.

 

Yes, the first time you played Baldur's Gate it was hard. Then you read Dan Simpson's FAQ, learned the location of all the tomes, rerolled a million times, and built the ultimate fighter with 18/00 Strength.

 

BORING. I've done it a million times before. I want something different.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Infinitron

[Elerond]

 

 

To be fair, there is a 5% chance to miss.

 

And chance get bigger if you go against opponets above of your level.

 

But this will probably only occur if you go off the critical path.

 

In my opinion proposed system is very intriguing as it lowers luck's impact in the combat and forces player use more complex tactics and have actual knowledge how things work in the combat.

Remove "chance"? Absolutely. It will have no impact on tactics as far as I can see.

 

 

That is probably true that on critical path enemies will be about on your level.

 

Lowering chance's impact, as there is still chance to miss, graze, hit and criticaly hit, so chance is not fully removed, but it will have less effect in the game. And when you sum this with other combat changes like engagement  zones and disengagement attacks and etc. you will need to change your typical tactics from IE games and you also need to know how combat abilities in every class works so that you can actually be effective in the combat. Or so it looks to me that this will be the case, but of course this is only speculation from my part based on released information.

[Gfted1]

Lowering chance's impact, as there is still chance to miss, graze, hit and criticaly hit, so chance is not fully removed, but it will have less effect in the game. And when you sum this with other combat changes like engagement  zones and disengagement attacks and etc. you will need to change your typical tactics from IE games and you also need to know how combat abilities in every class works so that you can actually be effective in the combat. Or so it looks to me that this will be the case, but of course this is only speculation from my part based on released information.

I suppose that's possible. Ive never played a game where I (mostly) couldn't miss but I cant imagine I would have done anything different in the IE games based on a (mostly) static 95% chance to cause damage. Of course you have to pay attention to AoO and other positional issues but that's been in games since ToEE so nothing new there.

[Infinitron]

My thoughts about the reduction of missing:

 

It prevents the (dare I say it) degenerate situation where two extremely high AC characters are fruitlessly whacking at one another until one of them finally gets the lucky critical hit and manages to damage the other. With no missing, those two characters are both taking damage, every second, every moment. That means that one of them has to break the tie, and fast, because he's losing precious health which, let me remind you, cannot be healed. It leads to players using more aggressive tactics, rather than waiting for the lucky die roll to save them.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Infinitron

[Gfted1]

It prevents the (dare I say it) degenerate situation where two extremely high AC characters are fruitlessly whacking at one another until one of them finally gets the lucky critical hit and manages to damage the other.

I cant recall a single instance of that happening ToB (high level campaign) but its been a long time since I played it. By the time you have a high AC you generally also had an equivalent weapon to overcome enemy high AC. Can you give me an example of your experience with a flurry of misses at high level?

[Malekith]

 I also thought combat rounds gave a nice rhythm to the combat which pure real-time lacks. 

That is actualy a valid consern and the one thing i agree with you. I think Obsidian wants to make the combat to be similar in feel and speed to the IE games, and i trust them to succed.

But if one thing worries me, is that. I would hate to have something like Diablo's or Divine Divinity combat.

But i think the chances for that are small. The way Sawyer described it, i imagine it more like Warcraft 3 were you only control 6 heroes in terms of speed.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Malekith

[decado]

 

It seems obvious to me that Obsidian isn't using someone else's ruleset because they wanted to make their own. Why is this a problem?

It's a problem because they will fail to make a ruleset even close to how robust and deep something like 3.5 is.

 

 

1) They will?

2) Lmao

3) 3.5 sucks

4) Lmao

5) I guess they don't deserve the opportunity to try?

6) Lmao

[Chrononaut]

 

 

It seems obvious to me that Obsidian isn't using someone else's ruleset because they wanted to make their own. Why is this a problem?

It's a problem because they will fail to make a ruleset even close to how robust and deep something like 3.5 is.

 

 

1) They will?

2) Lmao

3) 3.5 sucks

4) Lmao

5) I guess they don't deserve the opportunity to try?

6) Lmao

 

5/6 of the dialogues choices are the same, how Biowarean

Edited August 7, 2013 by Chrononaut

[decado]

There is absolutely no reason why they should feel beholden to an old CRPG convention.  DnD has always been notoriously hard to translate to a PC, going all the way back to gold box games.  Every DnD CRPG has needed a high level of tweaking and manipulation to get pen and paper mechanics in good enough shape to work on a computer.  

 

So why bother?  Why bother, especially when you've got life-long RPG fans working at the company, people who know how to design a game system, who have designed them before, working on the problem?  Where was this grognarding back when OE was making Fallout: NV?   Why weren't people demanding an adherence GURPs or RIFTs or Shadowrun rulesets? After all, SPECIAL was created specifically for Fallout, it was designed from the ground up to be a CRPG system.  Yet somehow, FO 1 and 2 ended up being some of the best games ever made.  Was that just dumb luck? 

[Chrononaut]

SPECIAL was a terrible system, so I'm not sure what your point is, FO was a good game because of content. It would be been even better with GURPS.

[Infinitron]

 

It prevents the (dare I say it) degenerate situation where two extremely high AC characters are fruitlessly whacking at one another until one of them finally gets the lucky critical hit and manages to damage the other.

I cant recall a single instance of that happening ToB (high level campaign) but its been a long time since I played it. By the time you have a high AC you generally also had an equivalent weapon to overcome enemy high AC. Can you give me an example of your experience with a flurry of misses at high level?

 

 

High level gameplay has its own problems. Yes, the situation I describe is more common at lower and mid-levels (which is the experience PE is aiming to replicate) before THAC0 has inflated past AC.

 

In any case, it's just an extreme example that demonstrates the disadvantages of a system where missing is very common.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Infinitron

[Gfted1]

My bad. I associated "extremely high AC character" with high level characters but I suppose there may be some way to acquire the best gear and stats at low/medium levels.

[decado]

Like getting Daystar at level 9 or whatever, lol.  The Crooked Crane Inn FTW!

Edited August 7, 2013 by decado

[tajerio]

Obsidian might change some things, but their stance on devising their own mechanical system is not going to change.  That's pretty clear.  Since Chrononaut has made his displeasure with that equally obvious by this point, what else is there really to say here?

[Ansku]

I for one backed PE because I loved BGs and PST, and liked IWDs well enough, and haven't been able to play much of anything in the ways of RPG after them since they all give me a hell of a motion sickness. I mean, Witcher is nice enough and everything, as long as I choose the highest camera angle, never ever run, only play for an hour or two at a time, and keep my eyes closed whenever I can when navigating city areas, but that really doesn't compare to the fun I had (and still have) with the old IE games.

 

This far I'm quite satisfied with what we've been promised, and I don't think that has changed in any significant manner since the first day of Kickstarter. Granted, I've only read three forum threads through and glanced at two others, so I may have missed something major.

[decado]

SPECIAL was a terrible system, so I'm not sure what your point is, FO was a good game because of content. It would be been even better with GURPS.

 

Special was great.  The use of perks/traits and the attribute set up was probably one of the best iterations of a CRPG system ever devised up to that time.  So much so that it is still used to today, 15 years later. 

 

Fallout was a good game for a lot of reasons: good story telling, interesting combat, a well-written setting, and, yes, the character mechanics.  I don't think this is a revolutionary statement, by the way. 

[Malekith]

 

SPECIAL was a terrible system, so I'm not sure what your point is, FO was a good game because of content. It would be been even better with GURPS.

 

Special was great.  The use of perks/traits and the attribute set up was probably one of the best iterations of a CRPG system ever devised up to that time.  So much so that it is still used to today, 15 years later. 

 

Fallout was a good game for a lot of reasons: good story telling, interesting combat, a well-written setting, and, yes, the character mechanics.  I don't think this is a revolutionary statement, by the way. 

 

FO had many many useless skills and ways to make a bad character. Way more than D&D. I don't have a problem with that personaly, but to say that D&D is deeply flawed and SPECIAL is alright strikes me as...strange.

[tiaxthemighty]

The BG/BG2 ad&d ruleset made for some really fun combat, but it was also hideously imbalanced, which killed replayability. Why play a fighter when you could play a cleric/ranger? For that matter, between timestop, improved alacrity, horrid wilting etc, why play any class at all other than a mage/sorcerer? If you rolled a character that didn't have access to high-level arcane magic, you were setting yourself up to be gimped by the time you left Underdark.

[Malekith]

The BG/BG2 ad&d ruleset made for some really fun combat, but it was also hideously imbalanced, which killed replayability. Why play a fighter when you could play a cleric/ranger? For that matter, between timestop, improved alacrity, horrid wilting etc, why play any class at all other than a mage/sorcerer? If you rolled a character that didn't have access to high-level arcane magic, you were setting yourself up to be gimped by the time you left Underdark.

Edwin was a better mage than the player character could ever be. So what you say doesn't make much sense. It was a PARTY game. Your party composition is what matters, not your character. If you have mage, great. You choose more melee focused companions. You start with thief? Pick one of the mages.

Come on guys. I disagree with Chrononaut and his complains, but some of the complains agains D&D are stupid as well.

[decado]

 

 

SPECIAL was a terrible system, so I'm not sure what your point is, FO was a good game because of content. It would be been even better with GURPS.

 

Special was great.  The use of perks/traits and the attribute set up was probably one of the best iterations of a CRPG system ever devised up to that time.  So much so that it is still used to today, 15 years later. 

 

Fallout was a good game for a lot of reasons: good story telling, interesting combat, a well-written setting, and, yes, the character mechanics.  I don't think this is a revolutionary statement, by the way. 

 

FO had many many useless skills and ways to make a bad character. Way more than D&D. I don't have a problem with that personaly, but to say that D&D is deeply flawed and SPECIAL is alright strikes me as...strange.

 

Well I don't think DnD was deeply flawed.  I don't like 3/3.5.  I never have.  My pen and paper exposure to them was limited, because the gaming group I played with at the time didn't really care to switch from 2nd edition. So I didn't get a lot of experience with them, and maybe I would have liked them had I got to play them more.  But for my money, 2nd Edition ADnD is still one of the best (in which ever way you care to measure the concept) RPG systems ever made.

 

Regarding the original SPECIAL implementations: I liked that there were ways to make a "bad" character.  But even then, FO2 supported a bunch of different ways to play through the game.  You did not have to be a killing machine in order to beat the game.  I played through once with a high CHA speech/science/knife-wielder.  The game was pretty hard, but also a lot of fun.  I just had to think outside the box(es), as they say.

Edited August 7, 2013 by decado

[Infinitron]

FO2 supporting many ways to play through the game doesn't have anything do with SPECIAL. It's content - it would exist even with a completely different system.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Infinitron

[decado]

FO2 supporting many ways to play through the game doesn't have anything do with SPECIAL. It's content - it would exist even with a completely different system.

 

Uh, yeah it kinda does.  The attribute system you use determines what kind of content makes it into the game.