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

[Amentep]

If by "winning side", and "refining", you mean eliminating the resting mechanic outright, and then designing a system from the ground up that turns your characters into energizer bunnies who's spells and abilities are tied to a cooldown timer, so that you'd never need to rest anyway, then sure. They're winning. Today's biggest selling RPGs, MMOs etc. don't even *have* resting mechanics.

 

But they're not doing anything better. And I question their use of the term "RPG" in the first place. I'll take the old system, thanks. Makes more friggin sense.

I'm not aware that Obsidian is eliminating the resting mechanic outright - aren't they only limiting where you can rest as a way of addressing resting after every encounter?

 

That said, is there any real difference between a Level X Mage having 6 fireballs memorized and the player rests after every fight so they can always fling fireballs and a Level X Mage who, based on cooldown mechanics, can throw 6 fireballs every fight? The Mage still does the same thing, so what benefit is had by having the player press the "rest" button?

[Gfted1]

...so what benefit is had by having the player press the "rest" button?

Resting also replenishes per-day abilities.

[Amentep]

 

...so what benefit is had by having the player press the "rest" button?

Resting also replenishes per-day abilities.

 

Right, but did people rest spam 3 times in a row (to advance 24 hours) so they could recoup their Turn Undeads or Lay on Hands? My experience with the IE games was the games incentivized rest spamming because your mage became less effective after every fight. Most of the other abilities were free to use or easily mimicked by scrolls or potions so I never felt the game encouraged rest spamming (multiple times!) to recoup those (but I could be wrong).

Edited July 3, 2013 by Amentep

[Stun]

That said, is there any real difference between a Level X Mage having 6 fireballs memorized and the player rests after every fight so they can always fling fireballs and a Level X Mage who, based on cooldown mechanics, can throw 6 fireballs every fight? The Mage still does the same thing, so what benefit is had by having the player press the "rest" button?

Assuming a day/night cycle, how about.... the passage of time itself, and whatever in game consequences/effects come along with it, including healing. And/or the fatigue system if PE ends up having one.

 

Right, but did people rest spam 3 times in a row (to advance 24 hours) so they could recoup their Turn Undeads or Lay on Hands?

What?

 

"per day" doesn't, and never has, mandated 24 hours. All 'per day' abilities in D&D and the IE games replenished after a proper, uninterupted 8 hours of rest

Edited July 3, 2013 by Stun

[Amentep]

 

That said, is there any real difference between a Level X Mage having 6 fireballs memorized and the player rests after every fight so they can always fling fireballs and a Level X Mage who, based on cooldown mechanics, can throw 6 fireballs every fight? The Mage still does the same thing, so what benefit is had by having the player press the "rest" button?

Assuming a day/night cycle, how about.... the passage of time itself, and whatever in game consequences/effects come along with it, including healing. And/or the fatigue system if PE ends up having one.

 

Did the day-night cycle in the old IE's ever matter much? I honestly don't remember.

 

The fatigue system in the IE games wasn't my favorite aspect (I loved having my party travel to a location and arrive fatigued because they're apparently too stupid to camp - even better when you entered a random combat fatigued. Sure you could stop off at a city on the way (IF you've unlocked it) but even then there were some locations that IIRC in BGII were always a day away).

 

Regarding healing, since they seem to be looking at a two part system (health-stamina), I think resting strategically will be important, but it won't necessarily be important after every battle (and particularly it won't be necessary after every battle if you want to keep you mage useful - the incentive for rest spamming in IE games).

[Gfted1]

Right, but did people rest spam 3 times in a row (to advance 24 hours) so they could recoup their Turn Undeads or Lay on Hands? My experience with the IE games was the games incentivized rest spamming because your mage became less effective after every fight. Most of the other abilities were free to use or easily mimicked by scrolls or potions so I never felt the game encouraged rest spamming (multiple times!) to recoup those (but I could be wrong).

Sorry, I don't follow. Your original point was that resting is similar to cooldowns, which I agree with, and then asks what benefits are there to resting, which I provided an example of. Please clarify.

 

I don't know how frequently other people rested in their games but in mine I used that setting that was something like "rest until fully healed" so there were times when multiple "days" went by.

[Stun]

While I'll lay partial blame on myself for this, I think we're creeping our way into a vancian vs. cooldown debate. Fun fun!

 

By the way, Any game with a vancian system will indeed see some players rest spamming. So what. Of course, I've yet to see any "cooldown" defender admit that essentially the exact same thing occurs with the cooldown system. You can wait-spam in those games. And players unapologeticically do. Take Dragon Age Origins, for example. You can clear all three maps of the deep roads by casting Storm of the century... then waiting. Then casting it again, then waiting....etc.

 

Gamers find a way to degener-ate. The specific system doesn't matter. I've never even seen a system unique enough to prevent them from using the same degenerate tactics.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Stun

[Amentep]

What?

 

"per day" doesn't, and never has, mandated 24 hours. All 'per day' abilities in D&D and the IE games replenished after a proper, uninterupted 8 hours of rest

 

Really? Wow I guess that shows how much I used per day abilities in the IE games.

 

 

Sorry, I don't follow. Your original point was that resting is similar to cooldowns, which I agree with, and then asks what benefits are there to resting, which I provided an example of. Please clarify.

 

I don't know how frequently other people rested in their games but in mine I used that setting that was something like "rest until fully healed" so there were times when multiple "days" went by.

 

 

My point was that if cooldowns allow the mimicking of the effect of rest spamming; if some resting is still in for rest-restored powers is there a need to have the ability to rest spam (because the problem seems to keep cropping up - unless I'm misunderstanding - is that they're looking at a system where the player is not allowed to rest wherever they want as many times as they want).

 

 

While I'll lay partial blame on myself for this, I think we're creeping our way into a vancian vs. cooldown debate. Fun fun!

 

By the way, Any game with a vancian system will indeed see some players rest spamming. So what. Of course, I've yet to see any "cooldown" defender admit that essentially the exact same thing occurs with the cooldown system. You can wait-spam in those games. And players unapologeticically do. Take Dragon Age Origins, for example. You can clear all three maps of the deep roads by casting Storm of the century... then waiting. Then casting it again, then waiting....etc.

 

Gamers find a way to degener-ate. The specific system doesn't matter. I've never even seen a system unique enough to prevent them from using the same degenerate tactics.

 

 

Right, I agree with you that gamers will find ways to game the system, regardless of the system.  It doesn't matter if its D&D or Dragon Age or Monopoly.

 

I just don't agree that because of that fact there's no need to think about the systems you're creating and whether there are ways to not encourage unintended consequences or behaviors - particularly since they're building this from the ground up and can consider whether having the player press a button or wait or reload saves is fun.  Right now with cooldowns they run the risk of encouraging wait spamming; my understanding is that they're trying to address that by balancing per-encounter and at will powers to keep spell-classes useful each battle and putting less emphasis on waiting to be at full power every encounter.

 

Will it work?  Dunno.  But I'm not necessarily adverse to them trying (I'll confess the inventory stuff I have a harder time wrapping my head around but am still willing to give the benefit of doubt until we see how it works in the game).

[meomao]

Yes, I'm feelin' that we're getting what we were promised so far in general terms. 

 

Basically, what's missing is the D&D rule system/lore. Without D&D & its lore is difficult to get the feel of those games.

 

But as far as "house rules" go, I feel Sawyer is doing a very good job. We could always say that PE is more D&D than the 4th edition'll ever be . 

[Diagoras]

Clarification - DoubleFine has not run out of money. They have revised their projections and decided that, on the current track, they risk running out of money on the tail end of the game. When deciding whether to cut scope or raise additional funds, they decided to try and raise more by selling the first half on Steam early access.

[SymbolicFrank]

How about some background?

 

First, do we really want a Baldur's Gate clone with a new story and better graphics? I'm pretty sure everyone has their list of things they would like to see improved. So, it's about the direction it is going. Let's look at that.

 

Baldur's Gate followed the AD&D 2.5 rule set as close as possible. Which was often a compromise. And it has been superseded with 3 and 4. P:E seems to go for a custom subset of 4, with extensions. As that is (probably) the most known one for the developers. But, let's go a step back and look at (A)D&D x first.

 

D&D has been developed as a rule set for Pen & Paper adventuring. And the target has been to sell as many books as possible, selling more and more rules, or extensions. Each and every thing should have it's own stats, rules and abilities. Which has the added benefit, that as a player, you can be and do whomever and whatever you want, as long as you have a book that specifies the option. And your GM allows it and doesn't throw you out, of course ;-)

 

Version 3 was mostly about consolidating, and 4 about speed and balance. Or, in other words: by now every player can pull his/her weight at all times, can do everything about as well as every other player and is equally important. Balance has been achieved. Which is fine for individual players sitting around a table, but might not work as well when you're commanding a whole group by yourself.

 

When you command a whole group, you want the members to shine at certain things, and be bad at others. Because, otherwise your direction isn't required: select all -> "Attack!". And that would be it. Not very fun at all.

 

You want to position them just right, order the stealthy ones to scout ahead and circle the enemy, order your mages to seriously incapacitate them, march your fighters to the front to protect the weak ones, order the ranged ones to unload and keep the healers where they can protect and serve. That's what makes playing these games fun.

 

Like chess: would a board filled with only Queens be as fun to play? It would offer little strategy or tactics, and be all about attrition.

 

 

If we analyze this a bit more, we see that D&D started with classes to make it easier for players: "What do you want to do?" "I want to fling fireballs at the enemy!", while they ended up with a basically classless system. Clerics are still overpowered, because before 4, not many people wanted to play them, while they were needed. That's why we have paladins and druids as well. Etc. But the difference has become smaller all the time. With 4, you just use something that's named different, but has the same effect.

 

 

So, I think the main problem is this: do we want a customized, state-of-the-art and "balanced" P&P system, or do we want unique characters and equipment, even excessively so if possible?

 

And to add to that: we don't want to buy and read all of the books, so the system used should be simple and cohesive.

 

But the uniqueness should go for enemies and equipment as well as your party members. Simple shouldn't equal bland. Just understandable. No "+1". But don't make a whole set of unique rules for any new thing. Rules should work for everyone and everything, so we, the players, can understand them.

 

And the more variation, the better.

Edited July 3, 2013 by SymbolicFrank

[jamoecw]

 

I strongly disagree with the term "degenerate gameplay" and not too thrilled about some of the decisions made to avoid it. However, what do I, a random guy know about making games? Next to nothing.

You don't need to know anything about making games. To be an authority on matters, you just need to know enough about playing them. Especially when dealing with developers who love worrying about "degenerate gameplay".

 

Convoluted ranting to come here, but hopefully I'll make a point sometime in the next 1000 words.

 

Where to begin. OK. Even if we LOVE what the developers are doing to eliminate "Degenerate Gameplay", they're still doing it wrong. A Game developer should be 100% focussed on creating a fun game, not check-mating bad player behavior at all costs. The latter is just a stupid, soulless approach to game creation. It's like a music artist who, instead of composing a masterpiece from his heart and soul, decides to just study up on his fanbase, and their tastes and habits, and then methodically creating a song that his "research" suggests will be successful.

 

 

But forget about that pseudo-philosophical crap. Lets focus on the more practical. The given definition (given by Josh Sawyer, in fact) of "Degenerate Gameplay" is stuff like: 1) being able to Rest too often; 2) Being able to Save too often; 3) being able to Reload too often; 4) Min-maxing; 5) Meta-gaming.

 

Now, I don't know about you, but I see these things as the gamer's choice. And its not up to the developer to decide how *I* play *MY* game. If I do 1-5 and end up ruining the experience for myself then that's my problem. However, if the developer wastes his development time creating a game with a billion fail-safes, a million gameplay limitations, and unshakeable, rigid "balance", all designed to ensure that we degenerates will never get the last laugh, then chances are they have just created an unnatural, mechanical thing that will not feel like a masterpiece at all, but a perfectly designed piece of.... unbreakable metal. And when that happens, it's THEIR fault.

 

degenerative gameplay:

1) having to Rest too often; 2) having to Save too often; 3) having to Reload too often; 4) having to Min-max; 5) having to Meta-game.

 

basically they took the old IE games, and looked at the typical stuff players did, and asked themselves why they did it?  was it fun?  did it give a meaningful edge gameplay wise?

 

if it wasn't fun and it gave an edge they asked themselves, how do i change this to make it more fun?  if it was fun and didn't give an edge they asked themselves, how do we reproduce this?  if it was fun and it gave an edge they asked themselves, how do we mimic this?  if it did neither they asked, can we cut this?

 

if a rock star listens to his fans, he is considered in tune with the community.  if he soullessly produces music based on studies of his fans, he will make hit singles and make tons of money.  there is in fact a whole genre of this called boy bands, as well as most pop stars (not limited to pop stars though).  the history of it is pretty fascinating if you read it, the general consensus is that it would suck, yet most of the time when enough resources are poured into them they make tons of money and gather a big following.  the thing about obsidian though is that they have never done what studies say they should do, in fact this whole project is in contrast to what the studies say they should do (hence the need for kickstarter), so by that logic it may very well suck.

 

 

That said, is there any real difference between a Level X Mage having 6 fireballs memorized and the player rests after every fight so they can always fling fireballs and a Level X Mage who, based on cooldown mechanics, can throw 6 fireballs every fight? The Mage still does the same thing, so what benefit is had by having the player press the "rest" button?

Assuming a day/night cycle, how about.... the passage of time itself, and whatever in game consequences/effects come along with it, including healing. And/or the fatigue system if PE ends up having one.

 

Right, but did people rest spam 3 times in a row (to advance 24 hours) so they could recoup their Turn Undeads or Lay on Hands?

What?

 

"per day" doesn't, and never has, mandated 24 hours. All 'per day' abilities in D&D and the IE games replenished after a proper, uninterupted 8 hours of rest

 

actually in D&D if it said per day, then it was 24 hours, whether or not you rested (unless it said otherwise), while wizards were 8 hours of rest + x amount of time to prepare spells, sorcerers and bards tended to be just a full 8 hours of rest.  they also had per week abilities.  of course your DM could house rule anything he wanted to.  in IE it was always 8 hours of rest, an engine limitation.

[SymbolicFrank]

if a rock star listens to his fans, he is considered in tune with the community.  if he soullessly produces music based on studies of his fans, he will make hit singles and make tons of money.  there is in fact a whole genre of this called boy bands, as well as most pop stars (not limited to pop stars though).  the history of it is pretty fascinating if you read it, the general consensus is that it would suck, yet most of the time when enough resources are poured into them they make tons of money and gather a big following.  the thing about obsidian though is that they have never done what studies say they should do, in fact this whole project is in contrast to what the studies say they should do (hence the need for kickstarter), so by that logic it may very well suck.

 

That's what all the Big Companies, like EA do. The end result is a game that is indistinguishable from any other game in the genre. Just pick the three most successful ones, throw them in a blender, add some nice, shiny graphics and you're done.

 

Then again, if you want to make such a game, you don't need to Kickstarter it.

 

;-)

[Jarmo]

• The perfect RPG that included all the neatest features of the IE game you liked the best, all the things in more modern RPG's you like the best.
• Including none of the annoying things in old IE games or none of the annoying things in modern RPG's.
• New previously unseen ideas, all of which are good and none of which are bad.
• A plot and companions are as awesome as your time gilded memory of the best plot and companions you encountered when young and less cynical.

 

Now will we get that? Of course we will.

[SymbolicFrank]

Now will we get that? Of course we will.

Exactly. ;-)

 

Then again, it would be nice if we could understand where everyone wants to go, and find out what the main points are. Which shouldn't be all that hard.

 

The trick is in the explanation. "Yes" or "No" have no real value, unless you understand why it is said. And the devs should do the explaining, so we, the players, can do the understanding and give coherent feedback.

 

That way, we all win.

[Lephys]

Now, I don't know about you, but I see these things as the gamer's choice. And its not up to the developer to decide how *I* play *MY* game.

But... it literally is, on a fundamental level. That's pretty much Josh's point. If they make the game a shooter, you can't play it as a city-builder, obviously.

 

When it gets much more subtle than that, though, everyone seems to act like it's something entirely different. If you're playing Tetris, and you can just press a button to alternate between block types, then that defeats the purpose of having to adapt to whatever block type you happen to be given. As Josh said, if they design the game to let you do that, then doing that isn't wrong. Their designing the game that way was wrong. The design is literally self-defeating, as the only obstacle between you and the solution to Tetris is the fact that you can't choose which block shape you get and when. The block shapes are already designed to fit together to form a solution, ultimately, so once you can choose your blocks, the entire game is broken.

 

Tetris is, of course, a very simple game, which is why it makes a good example. It can be compared to a mere component within a larger game (like a cRPG). The point being that, the developer is in no way obligated to design a game that grants the player the ability to break the game's own design.

[Eiphel]

 

Now, I don't know about you, but I see these things as the gamer's choice. And its not up to the developer to decide how *I* play *MY* game.

But... it literally is, on a fundamental level. That's pretty much Josh's point. If they make the game a shooter, you can't play it as a city-builder, obviously.

 

When it gets much more subtle than that, though, everyone seems to act like it's something entirely different. If you're playing Tetris, and you can just press a button to alternate between block types, then that defeats the purpose of having to adapt to whatever block type you happen to be given. As Josh said, if they design the game to let you do that, then doing that isn't wrong. Their designing the game that way was wrong. The design is literally self-defeating, as the only obstacle between you and the solution to Tetris is the fact that you can't choose which block shape you get and when. The block shapes are already designed to fit together to form a solution, ultimately, so once you can choose your blocks, the entire game is broken.

 

Tetris is, of course, a very simple game, which is why it makes a good example. It can be compared to a mere component within a larger game (like a cRPG). The point being that, the developer is in no way obligated to design a game that grants the player the ability to break the game's own design.

 

This is sort of veering off topic here, but there's a very good book about games called The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia, and it offers an interesting perspective on just these sorts of points.

[SymbolicFrank]

 If you're playing Tetris, and you can just press a button to alternate between block types, then that defeats the purpose of having to adapt to whatever block type you happen to be given. As Josh said, if they design the game to let you do that, then doing that isn't wrong. Their designing the game that way was wrong. The design is literally self-defeating, as the only obstacle between you and the solution to Tetris is the fact that you can't choose which block shape you get and when. The block shapes are already designed to fit together to form a solution, ultimately, so once you can choose your blocks, the entire game is broken.

 

Which is, in a sense, exactly what they are doing when they allow all of your party members to do anything available.

 

Sure, some of them will do it a bit less efficient than another one. But that doesn't matter, because they can all do it anyway.

Edited July 3, 2013 by SymbolicFrank

[Micamo]

The point being that, the developer is in no way obligated to design a game that grants the player the ability to break the game's own design.

I disagree.

 

I played Fallout: New Vegas the legitimate way for about 3 hours before I gave up and turned on god mode. I dunno about you, but NV is waaaaaaaaaay better that way. It didn't render the game pointless, it just took out the parts that got in the way of my enjoyment of the game (e.g. inventory management).

[Stun]

 

If you're playing Tetris, and you can just press a button to alternate between block types, then that defeats the purpose of having to adapt to whatever block type you happen to be given. As Josh said, if they design the game to let you do that, then doing that isn't wrong. Their designing the game that way was wrong. The design is literally self-defeating, as the only obstacle between you and the solution to Tetris is the fact that you can't choose which block shape you get and when. The block shapes are already designed to fit together to form a solution, ultimately, so once you can choose your blocks, the entire game is broken.

 

Which is, in a sense, exactly what they are doing when they allow all of your party members to do anything available.

 

Sure, some of them will do it a bit less efficient than another one. But that doesn't matter, because they can all do it anyway.

 

What do you mean by this?

 

Do you see it as good design if every type of character can do anything? I don't. It defeats the purpose of having different classes, and different builds. It also renders pointless the notion of a party. Because if any given class has access to all skills, then you know, who needs a rogue? Your Warrior can just open all locks, disarm all traps, and be his own scout.... That is, when he's not buffing himself, tanking the front lines, and backstabbing the unaware enemies after activating his berserker rage from the shadows. lol

Edited July 3, 2013 by Stun

[SymbolicFrank]

 

 

If you're playing Tetris, and you can just press a button to alternate between block types, then that defeats the purpose of having to adapt to whatever block type you happen to be given. As Josh said, if they design the game to let you do that, then doing that isn't wrong. Their designing the game that way was wrong. The design is literally self-defeating, as the only obstacle between you and the solution to Tetris is the fact that you can't choose which block shape you get and when. The block shapes are already designed to fit together to form a solution, ultimately, so once you can choose your blocks, the entire game is broken.

 

Which is, in a sense, exactly what they are doing when they allow all of your party members to do anything available.

 

Sure, some of them will do it a bit less efficient than another one. But that doesn't matter, because they can all do it anyway.

 

What do you mean by this?

 

Do you see it as good design if every type of character can do anything? I don't. Using the tetris analogy, it would be like the game letting you alter the shape of each falling piece in order for it to fit as you wish it to.

 

It defeats the purpose of having different classes, and different builds. It also renders pointless the notion of a party, beyond the mindless: "well 5 people doing x is better than just 1x doing it!"

 

We agree.

 

The next point would be: if there is a trap which only a pure rogue can disarm, can it be allowed to be lethal?

 

If playing with a group: sure, why not. But if that is the only way to continue, it would stop any solo character that isn't (mostly) a thief.

 

Unless there's another way...

 

 

And the same goes for diplomacy.

Edited July 3, 2013 by SymbolicFrank

[Lephys]

I disagree.

 

I played Fallout: New Vegas the legitimate way for about 3 hours before I gave up and turned on god mode. I dunno about you, but NV is waaaaaaaaaay better that way. It didn't render the game pointless, it just took out the parts that got in the way of my enjoyment of the game (e.g. inventory management).

Your subjective dissatisfaction with the specifics of Fallout: New Vegas in no way dictates the quality of the game's design, or of the inclusion of any given components.

 

If you don't like inventory management, then why play a game with such a system included in its design and expect it to cater to you? If you DO like inventory management, and you simply feel that the game's implementation of it was lacking, then the solution would be for them to have implemented it better, not "just go ahead and implement things in a sub-par way while simultaneously making sure I can circumvent them specifically because they're sub-par, even though I wouldn't have to circumvent them if they weren't sub-par."

 

That is nonsensical.

 

Which is, in a sense, exactly what they are doing when they allow all of your party members to do anything available.

 

Sure, some of them will do it a bit less efficient than another one. But that doesn't matter, because they can all do it anyway.

Ehh... that's not really what I was getting at. If a game says "Hey, you have finite HP, so get through combat without dying!", and that's the design of combat, then there's no reason it NEEDS to include some way of bypassing the finite-ness of HP, just because you don't like having finite HP. Your not-liking finite HP does not dictate whether or not games should be made that mandate finite HP. It is in no way wrong for them to not give you potions of invulnerability at extremely cheap prices, for example.

 

By most of the logic I've seen regarding anything even remotely like this, Puzzle-game makers are "punishing" all the people who don't want to play puzzle games, simply by making a product that doesn't meet their needs. They're suggesting you're playing the game wrong if you don't want to adhere to the rules and solve the puzzles.

 

Anywho... as for "everyone can do everything," I think it's REALLY easy to misconstrue that statement. There's a big difference between "everyone can do anything," and "everyone can do everything." If you have 20 skill points to spend, and you can only spend them on 5 out of 10 skills, then great. Okay, now, say you can spend them on all 10 out of 10 skills. But you still only have 20 skill points. If you simply have infinite skill points, then you have Skyrim, where you can literally master everything. The problem isn't in that you have access to all potential options, but that you have no limit as to your pursuit/advancement of those options.

 

OH NO! EVERYONE CAN TAKE LOCKPICKING! Yeah, at the cost of something else. And guess what? There are still plenty of things the Rogue can do that the Fighter or Wizard can't. A Rogue with lockpicking and a Fighter with lockpicking are still completely different things.

 

If none of the other class distinctions matter except utilities such as lockpicking or vocal charisma (or sneakiness), then why do you need to reduce the value of a specific character to a simple tool?

 

"OMG! My DRUID can pick locks!" Great. Now your Rogue doesn't have to. The Rogue's not forced to have 77 points in lockpicking, remember? 'Cause it's not a Rogue skill. So, you have to have the person with all the points in lockpicking to have really good lockpicking. Which just so happens to be the Druid. If that person dies or gets separated from the group, no lockpickies for you. Unless you make EVERYONE pump points into lockpicking every level, in which case you won't have anyone who spent any points on anything else. All you'll HAVE is lockpicking.

 

For the record, I think the potential for aggregate skill checks can be a very good idea. Got two people with Crafting? Now you have more crafting options in certain situation. Got two people with really high talkative skills? Cool. In SOME situations, they'll be able to work together to more effectively convince someone of something, etc.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Lephys

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Do you see it as good design if every type of character can do anything? I don't. It defeats the purpose of having different classes, and different builds. It also renders pointless the notion of a party. Because if any given class has access to all skills, then you know, who needs a rogue? Your Warrior can just open all locks, disarm all traps, and be his own scout.... That is, when he's not buffing himself, tanking the front lines, and backstabbing the unaware enemies after activating his berserker rage from the shadows. lol

I don't see it as good design if any character can do everything well(although I would lmao if there was a character who could do everything, but kind of sucked at it). Classes should all have the same amount of relative power(ex: a Fighter should be as good at fighting as a Wizard is at magic), no one field should be blatantly superior to others, and classes should be versatile enough to serve a variety of purposes.That is the kind of balance I want, where each class has valuable abilities and isn't required to have a passable party, not every class deals the same amount of damage but there are different animations.

 

Also, I think that skills(like lockpicking, climbing, lore, etc) should be available to all classes. There should be enough skills so that no one character could be good at all of them, and that all skills should have relatively the same utility. PE should take a page from Pathfinder and give classes bonuses to certain skills that fir the class.

 

For the record, I think the potential for aggregate skill checks can be a very good idea. Got two people with Crafting? Now you have more crafting options in certain situation. Got two people with really high talkative skills? Cool. In SOME situations, they'll be able to work together to more effectively convince someone of something, etc.

In the expansion, the only way to reach a legendary weapon should be having at least two people use "read ancient poetry".

Edited July 4, 2013 by KaineParker

[SunBroSolaire]

I didn't like the IE games all that much. P:T had awesome writing, and they all had great visuals and music, but beyond that...

 

I backed this project because I want Josh Sawyer, Tim Cain, Chris Avellone, George Ziets, Eric Fenstermaker, and all the other talented folks whose names I don't know (sorry!) to make a hardore RPG that isn't a Bioware or Bethesda clone. I'm getting pretty much exactly what I wanted and what I felt that they promised, though I worry sometimes that they're listening too much to the vocal minority on the forums. 

[IndiraLightfoot]

One aspect I didn't like at all in Skyrim. Your antagonist got to be a jack of all trades, and even worse, you could do all quests, even become the head of factions opposing each other. *Shiver!*

 

Here we get to become an entire party of characters, so I think it's important to make characters exclusive. Ideally, a party with six different classes shouldn't be enough to even discover/open up half the game. For that you need to do new playthroughs.