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

So, it's like playing with a group made of Bards, all with their own feat and skill distribution?

I find it a little depressing that a 10 Str / 18 Int fighter is just as viable as the reverse of those stats. I know, I know, his towering intellect will allow him to precisely strike nothing but vital organs but meh anyway.

 

 

I find it a little depressing that a 10 Str / 18 Int fighter is just as viable as the reverse of those stats. I know, I know, his towering intellect will allow him to precisely strike nothing but vital organs but meh anyway.

 

Is it depressing simply because it's different?

 

Or would the game be stronger if a variety of character archetypes open up a variety of different ways to play through the game?

If stats are going to be meaningless to classes then maybe a completely classless system would be a better approach? Next up, the retarded mage with otherworldly aim!

Is it depressing simply because it's different?

No, it's potentially problematic (and thus depressing for some folks) because it tends to fly in the face of reality and tends to dispell that ever elusive, highly desirable element of verisimilitude that makes for a more substantial, less "gamey" gaming experience. Weak fighters, non-dextrous rogues, less-than-bright wizards, etc. are both oxymoronic and insipid. They are indicative of a system designed to cater to people caught up a in a highly relativistic and overly fantastical mindset that leaves the rest of us shaking our heads with a mien of distaste and wondering what happened to the idea of a game designed by and for adults.

 

Or would the game be stronger if a variety of character archetypes open up a variety of different ways to play through the game?

To use fighters as an example, I like the idea of high Str/Con fighters, high Dex/Int fighters, or medium-high combos of the aforementioned stats, but characters with mediocre or low statistics in those categories should simply not be viable as fighters.

 

Or would the game be stronger if a variety of character archetypes open up a variety of different ways to play through the game?

To use fighters as an example, I like the idea of high Str/Con fighters, high Dex/Int fighters, or medium-high combos of the aforementioned stats, but characters with mediocre or low statistics in those categories should simply not be viable as fighters.

 

I agree. It has been the trend lately for devs to design a "fail safe" chargen... insuring that you simply can't create a character who's too woefully weak and unable to meet the challenges that the game will throw at you. They do this and then They then spin it by arguing: "hey, this system allows you VARIETY! Wanna role play a weak, crippled warrior with Steven Hawking's Brains? Done!"

 

In the meantime, they have forgotten what *true* Variety means: That successful builds and unsuccessful builds are possible.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Stun

 

Is it depressing simply because it's different?

No, it's potentially problematic (and thus depressing for some folks) because it tends to fly in the face of reality and tends to dispell that ever elusive, highly desirable element of verisimilitude that makes for a more substantial, less "gamey" gaming experience. Weak fighters, non-dextrous rogues, less-than-bright wizards, etc. are both oxymoronic and insipid. They are indicative of a system designed to cater to people caught up a in a highly relativistic and overly fantastical mindset that leaves the rest of us shaking our heads with a mien of distaste and wondering what happened to the idea of a game designed by and for adults.

 

Or would the game be stronger if a variety of character archetypes open up a variety of different ways to play through the game?

To use fighters as an example, I like the idea of high Str/Con fighters, high Dex/Int fighters, or medium-high combos of the aforementioned stats, but characters with mediocre or low statistics in those categories should simply not be viable as fighters.

 

 

Don't we have to take the system as a whole before we start getting depressed by what we see as arbitrary builds? So you have your 10 str/18 int fighter. He will be viable and will complete the game. He may not, however, complete the game with an enormous two handed battle axe that weighs 50 lbs. Instead, he might be forced to use lighter, one handed weapons that will require difference tactics and present different challenges as the game goes on. 

 

If their are statistic locked eq (which it seems like a good assumption that their are) then this is another way to differentiate character builds, All warriors are not the same. And when talking about non-optimal stat distribution, I doubt we are talking fighters with a 3 str (who are then forced to use chopsticks because those are the only weapons that he/she can pick up).

 

As an aside, I would think that this is a good thing in the sense of roleplaying, as you are less bound by statistical limitations in design your character, so you can make the burly wizard from the country who may not be as smart (med. Int) as the mamby-pampy apprentices (higher Int) who are the son and daughters of aristocrats and your fireball may not be the hottest (higher spell damage), but you can keep using your magic for much longer thanks to many years of hearty farm living (higher Endurance/Constitution).

I find it a little depressing that a 10 Str / 18 Int fighter is just as viable as the reverse of those stats. I know, I know, his towering intellect will allow him to precisely strike nothing but vital organs but meh anyway.

Your 10 STR / 18 INT fighter will be better at some challenges than your 18 STR / 10 INT fighter, and vice versa. They will not play identically.

 

On the other hand, in D&D there's no meaningful gameplay difference between a WIS 18 and WIS 7 fighter, or an INT 18 and INT 7 cleric, and so on. Those stats are effectively meaningless for those classes.

 

I.e., P:E will require you to trade off something of value to get something else of value, rather than to trade off something worthless for something extremely valuable. That makes character-building more varied and interesting, not less. Your "dumb brute" fighter's dumbness will be reflected in the mechanics too, not just the bruteness like in D&D; same for your "sickly genius" wizard's sickliness. How is that not a good thing?

Edited August 10, 2013 by PrimeJunta

 

I find it a little depressing that a 10 Str / 18 Int fighter is just as viable as the reverse of those stats. I know, I know, his towering intellect will allow him to precisely strike nothing but vital organs but meh anyway.

On the other hand, in D&D there's no meaningful gameplay difference between a WIS 18 and WIS 7 fighter, or an INT 18 and INT 7 cleric, and so on. Those stats are effectively meaningless for those classes.

 

Zen Archery Fighter that has high will save?  Cleric who actually has skill points and can invest in skills like whirlwind and use Combat Insight skill to use int instead of strength as damage? 

 

Yeah, I know you were probably talking about AD&D instead of 3.5/Pathfinder, but still.  

Edited August 10, 2013 by bonarbill

I was actually thinking also of D&D 3/3.5/Pathfinder.

 

Your Zen Archery Fighter will still have a poor Will save compared to a cleric of the same level. Conversely, a cleric taking Martial Weapons/Longbow and Zen Archery will out-shoot a dedicated fighter/archer build, when suitably self-buffed -- all while retaining that huge list of spells.

 

(Pet D&D peeve: clerics and druids are so overpowered that mechanically there's no compelling reason to play anything else. Which is unfair to people -- like me -- who like the concept of fighters or especially rogues more.)

 

OTOH your Combat Insight cleric will only get Whirlwind Attack at level 12/15 (if non-human) because of the massive feat investment needed (Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Combat Expertise, Whirlwind Attack).

 

Combat Insight isn't in the base system, BTW, and isn't in any cRPG I've played either. It's one of the band-aids introduced in supplements to paper over the imbalances in the base system. If you think it's a good idea, then what (if any?) is your problem with P:E's attempt to make all attributes valuable to start with, without recourse to such kludges?

Beating RPGs with severely gimped characters is a key part of re-playability. I did the whole of  BG2 with a really crap Bard and had a blast.

Gimping your PC and introducing other self-imposed constraints and handicaps, or making the game difficult in other ways is a whole different story. IMO difficulty levels, soloing, or playing to a strict code of conduct are much preferable ways to do that than having classes that are inherently weaker or attributes, skills, or abilities that are inherently less useful -- worse, if the game doesn't tell you so up front.

 

Personal note: I like rogues, and years ago when I started playing the IE games, I got immensely frustrated because my rogue just did not survive very well. I can get by with a rogue nowadays that I'm extremely familiar with the system and know how to squeeze out all the value there is from it, but I still consider the "support character" a really bad design idea.

 

Is it depressing simply because it's different?

No, it's potentially problematic (and thus depressing for some folks) because it tends to fly in the face of reality and tends to dispell that ever elusive, highly desirable element of verisimilitude that makes for a more substantial, less "gamey" gaming experience. Weak fighters, non-dextrous rogues, less-than-bright wizards, etc. are both oxymoronic and insipid. They are indicative of a system designed to cater to people caught up a in a highly relativistic and overly fantastical mindset that leaves the rest of us shaking our heads with a mien of distaste and wondering what happened to the idea of a game designed by and for adults.

 

 

 

If you're looking for verisimilitude, I'd argue that intellect should be the primary attribute for pretty much all the classes.  Weak is a relative term here.  If we're talking about a range like AD&D where your attributes can be 3, that's one thing.  But if our characters aren't severely handicapped (and I use this term specifically) in a particular attribute, that's something different.

 

A huge failing of the AD&D IE games is that intellect is essentially a "dump stat" for so many classes.  And I do not consider that good game design.  At the time I was much more of a power gamer, and aside from some annoying issues with Maze and making sure Mindflayers didn't focus me too much, my 19/19/19/3/18/17 Paladin (eventually Cavalier) was exceptionally powerful with virtually no weakness.  Talk about "gamey" experiences that compromise verisimilitude.

Edited August 10, 2013 by alanschu

Next up: we know that light armor and a dagger as main weapon are completely valid, high-level choices.

 

So, who would win in melee: a fighter wearing light armor and using a dagger, against a mage wearing full plate and swinging a claymore?

(Pet D&D peeve: clerics and druids are so overpowered that mechanically there's no compelling reason to play anything else. Which is unfair to people -- like me -- who like the concept of fighters or especially rogues more.)

 

For PnP, very few people like to play a support char, they all want to be the "main" hero. But healers are a needed class.

 

Imagine: the first healer was like a mage (a priest wearing robes with little weapons expertise) that could heal. And nobody wanted to play them! So, total party wipes were unavoidable.

 

Hence the full-plate wearing and very destructive Cleric as we know them. But that still wasn't enough, so instead of support classes, they're now called "Leaders", and they have better destructive spells than a mage...

 

That's also why we have Paladins and Druids: fighter-healers.

 

 

For a single-player game, that first healer would suffice.

Edited August 10, 2013 by SymbolicFrank

Beating RPGs with severely gimped characters is a key part of re-playability. I did the whole of  BG2 with a really crap Bard and had a blast.

 

Well I give you a simple recipe to gimp a character in PE which I think should be possible: Make one attribute very strong, but don't take any feats/abilities depending on this ability. Another recipe: Give your character all feats and abilities good for two-wepon fighting but because he was disgusted about all the blood spraying on himself he uses a bow now. Another recipe: Maximize  attributes and abilites for your monk being a first-class spell fighter, but the only spell he learns because of his peaceful agenda is 'Create Food'. Naturally I'm speculating here, but it would be really surprising if none of this worked.

 

If you guys didn't interpret anything Saywer says as literally as possible but used some common sense you wouldn't sound so much like drama queens. At least try to assume that Saywer has the minimal intelligence (>>3) to recognize for example that attributes that have no consequences whatsoever won't fly.

 

Sure there may be problems with his system that might become apparent in beta play. But come on, at least a handful of experienced role-players (those working on PE) should have looked at it already and really obvious faults like "whatever I do at chargen, my fighter is exactly the same" should have been noticed immediately. It might still become apparent that the differences aren't big enough to warant a replay but that is not something one will see at first glance because that first glance already happened.

Edited August 10, 2013 by jethro

 

Next up: we know that light armor and a dagger as main weapon are completely valid, high-level choices.

 

So, who would win in melee: a fighter wearing light armor and using a dagger, against a mage wearing full plate and swinging a claymore?

Depends on the circumstances of the fight. In close quarters neither claymore nor full plate gives any advantage.

 

 

As far as I get it, the mage won't be able to hit/damage the fighter without using special abilities/spells.

 

Beating RPGs with severely gimped characters is a key part of re-playability. I did the whole of  BG2 with a really crap Bard and had a blast.

 

Well I give you a simple recipe to gimp a character in PE which I think should be possible: Make one attribute very strong, but don't take any feats/abilities depending on this ability. Another recipe: Give your character all feats and abilities good for two-wepon fighting but because he was disgusted about all the blood spraying on himself he uses a bow now. Another recipe: Maximize  attributes and abilites for your monk being a first-class spell fighter, but the only spell he learns because of his peaceful agenda is 'Create Food'. Naturally I'm speculating here, but it would be really surprising if none of this worked.

 

From what I understand, things like chance to hit/damage/deflection/defense etc. raise each level just because you're a fighter.

 

So making such choices doesn't outright gimp you, it just makes you less effective.

Edited August 10, 2013 by SymbolicFrank

 

 

Beating RPGs with severely gimped characters is a key part of re-playability. I did the whole of  BG2 with a really crap Bard and had a blast.

 

Well I give you a simple recipe to gimp a character in PE which I think should be possible: Make one attribute very strong, but don't take any feats/abilities depending on this ability. Another recipe: Give your character all feats and abilities good for two-wepon fighting but because he was disgusted about all the blood spraying on himself he uses a bow now. Another recipe: Maximize  attributes and abilites for your monk being a first-class spell fighter, but the only spell he learns because of his peaceful agenda is 'Create Food'. Naturally I'm speculating here, but it would be really surprising if none of this worked.

 

From what I understand, things like chance to hit/damage/deflection/defense etc. raise each level just because you're a fighter.

 

So making such choices doesn't outright gimp you, it just makes you less effective.

 

 

They gimp you if they make you so much less effective that you lose most of the fights against same level opponents just because your character isn't effective enough.

So, who would win in melee: a fighter wearing light armor and using a dagger, against a mage wearing full plate and swinging a claymore?

The fighter. Unless we're talking 3e D&D and higher, where an armored mage can cast spells.

Next up: we know that light armor and a dagger as main weapon are completely valid, high-level choices.

 

So, who would win in melee: a fighter wearing light armor and using a dagger, against a mage wearing full plate and swinging a claymore?

 

In PE mage would probably win, because if I am understood correctly full plate has high DT and daggers have poor armor penetration. Although that fighter probably has high deflection and mage will have hard time to hit him with anything else than grazes, so at the end it will probably will come to see which character build has better abilities/spells to do damage.

 

So, who would win in melee: a fighter wearing light armor and using a dagger, against a mage wearing full plate and swinging a claymore?

The fighter. Unless we're talking 3e D&D and higher, where an armored mage can cast spells.

 

 

They can both cast spells.

 

Next up: we know that light armor and a dagger as main weapon are completely valid, high-level choices.

 

So, who would win in melee: a fighter wearing light armor and using a dagger, against a mage wearing full plate and swinging a claymore?

 

In PE mage would probably win, because if I am understood correctly full plate has high DT and daggers have poor armor penetration. Although that fighter probably has high deflection and mage will have hard time to hit him with anything else than grazes, so at the end it will probably will come to see which character build has better abilities/spells to do damage.

 

 

Agreed. AFAWK.

 

I would love to know what it would take/how it would work.

So, who would win in melee: a fighter wearing light armor and using a dagger, against a mage wearing full plate and swinging a claymore?

In my opinion this is the wrong question. Different characters should fare differently against different enemies. I'd rather ask questions like:

 

Which of those two characters would fare better in a mission that involved abducting the Heresiarch's favourite concubine from a magically warded palace patrolled by elite fighters?

 

Which would find it easier to defeat a group of ensouled, animated suits of armour?

 

If the answers are different for different situations, then the system is well designed and well balanced. If the answer is always "Mmm, the cleric," then there's something wrong with it.

... and it would be best if you needed multiple characters, that supplement each other.