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

[Stun]

When I say that IE games have bad combat, I don't mean the coding, more the 2e rules that obviously they couldn't control. Seriously **** THAC0. But that's my point, the games used a horrible (or horribly outdated, whatever you prefer) ruleset and saying that PE should be more like the IE games is really backwards thinking.

That's quite a bit different from your Originial statement on this thread, where you flat out condemned the IE games' gameplay.

 

Gameplay encompasses a hell of a lot more than just the combat ruleset.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Stun

[Malekith]

^That. I want the game to play exactly the same as the IE games. That doesn't mean i want D&D ruleset.

By the same logic IWD had diferent gameplay than IWD2 because 3d E, PS:T played diferently than all the others, BG games played diferently than IWD games due to system modifications etc.

[Sensuki]

When I say that IE games have bad combat, I don't mean the coding, more the 2e rules that obviously they couldn't control. Seriously **** THAC0. But that's my point, the games used a horrible (or horribly outdated, whatever you prefer) ruleset and saying that PE should be more like the IE games is really backwards thinking.

Thac0 is exactly the same as d20 positive it's just you read the numbers differently. Mechanically there is no difference, it is merely a matter of presentation

[Greensleeve]

 

When I say that IE games have bad combat, I don't mean the coding, more the 2e rules that obviously they couldn't control. Seriously **** THAC0. But that's my point, the games used a horrible (or horribly outdated, whatever you prefer) ruleset and saying that PE should be more like the IE games is really backwards thinking.

Thac0 is exactly the same as d20 positive it's just you read the numbers differently. Mechanically there is no difference, it is merely a matter of presentation

 

 

And presentation is extremely important. 

[Stun]

And presentation is extremely important.

Right. So what's the better proposal here? How else do you present a character's hit chance in a way that can actually fit on a character's stat screen?

 

personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference (in presentation) between "Thac0" and "attack score". When presented with a Person's AC, you have to do the exact same Math to figure out what you have to roll to score a hit.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Stun

[Sensuki]

Thac0 never bothered me. I can do addition and subtraction. I just have to laugh when people use thac0 as an example of bad D&D 2E rules. Sure it's unintuitive but the end result is it takes you a second longer to calculate your chance to hit.

[Malekith]

Thac0 never bothered me. I can do addition and subtraction. I just have to laugh when people use thac0 as an example of bad D&D 2E rules. Sure it's unintuitive but the end result is it takes you a second longer to calculate your chance to hit.

But that requires the ability to add two plus two. Apparently it is a rare skill.

[Dream]

Dream: If you're going to say that everything is "subject to change because SAWYER" then there's not much to debate, is there?

 

If you believe that Josh Sawyer wants to ruin this game, then I suggest you ask for a refund now.

 

I'm not trying to debate; I'm just stating why I have reservations about it. I'm still sure the game will be good (else I wouldn't have funded it), but I'm not expecting it to be the second coming.

 

Edit: If it turns out I'm wrong and the game ends up being the best thing since sliced bread I can confidently say I'll be happy to have been proven wrong.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Dream

[Sylvius the Mad]

Biggest change from the IE games I like:

 

Any class can fill any combat role.

 

 

Biggest 2 changes from the IE games I dislike:

 

Underpowered mages

Cannot use any party member as party spokesperson

[Sacred_Path]

Biggest change from the IE games I like:

 

Any class can fill any combat role.

Have they actually said this?

 

What I've read is that i.e. rogues are optimized for massive damage to single targets, not crowd control or tanking

[Bill Gates' Son]

 

Biggest 2 changes from the IE games I dislike:

 

Underpowered mages

 

I don't see how you can determine any class being underpowered when we haven't seen any of the combat yet.

[Tsuga C]

I don't see how you can determine any class being underpowered when we haven't seen any of the combat yet.

STM is a mage-o-phile and very much enjoys the AD&D convention of wizards starting weak and ending up as the most powerful class in the game. Perfectly balanced classes across the "level continuum" isn't something he seeks.

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

Biggest change from the IE games I like:

 

Any class can fill any combat role.

Have they actually said this?

 

What I've read is that i.e. rogues are optimized for massive damage to single targets, not crowd control or tanking

 

Right.  Each class is aimed at a specific combat role, and it is easier to build them to fill that role, but they're not limited to that role.

 

This isn't going to be like DA2 where you must have a tank and only warriors can tank.

 

Ideally, I'd like to see a game where I can load up the party with just mages, and then those mages can both do enough damage and crowd control that I don't need anyone else.

[Sylvius the Mad]

oops

Edited July 10, 2013 by Sylvius the Mad

[Sacred_Path]

Right.  Each class is aimed at a specific combat role, and it is easier to build them to fill that role, but they're not limited to that role.

 

This isn't going to be like DA2 where you must have a tank and only warriors can tank.

 

Ideally, I'd like to see a game where I can load up the party with just mages, and then those mages can both do enough damage and crowd control that I don't need anyone else.

K. Every class, but not every build, can fill any combat role I guess. I forgot that there are no dump stats.

[Adhin]

Yeah, Sylvious utopia of all mage party shall very most likely be realized and not horribly gimped, and its a good thing.

 

Really do like what they're doing with mages and having spells turn into per-encounter instead of per-rest after you level up enough so you always have access to the lower end spells each fight. Anytime I had a mage they spent more time thumb wrestling them selves then casting spells unless it was an absolute necessity.

[Lephys]

Every class can fill any combat role. Doesn't mean they will, or that they can fill every role.

 

I don't see why this is a problem. At worst, this means you can have 6 different classes and specialize them all into single-target damage dealing. How is the ability to do that with 6 different-class characters any different from being limited to only being able to do that with 6 same-class characters, and still having the option to just roll with those 6 same-class characters?

[Adhin]

Yeah I don't think it's a problem. If we had no variation in are classes (like 2nd edition) then I see a problem. Ultimately rigid structures just aren't as fun to me. In IE games it was sorta ok (though it drove me bonkers anyway) since you have up to 6 total chars so you kinda get to mess with everything, really. But on a personal level, developer your character and you have a specific idea and the game refuses to allow it to happen because its to rigid, that's just a bummer.

 

Also I kinda feel like im being argumentative on a subject we both agree on. Think I'm just looking for crap to keep my mind busy after the news this week (not PE related, R.I.P Ryan Davis).

[ilhdr]

This is just pre-game complaining, in my view.  It happens with every game, Kickstarted or not.  Following this will be the post-game complaining, followed by post-post-game complaining.  Then the nostalgia phase.

 

Jesus, this was one of the best descriptions of the twenty tens that I ever read.

[Vaeliorin]

Underpowered mages

I'll take underpowered mages over overpowered mages any day, but then you know that already.  Besides, after all the years of overpowered casters, it's only fair that the melee types get to be useful for a change.

 

Honestly, I'm really happy with what I've seen so far, as it's exceeded my expectations on many levels (I was expecting more 2E-like rules when funding the project, which is why I didn't back for higher than I did, as I loathe 2E D&D.)  I obviously won't be able to say for sure until they've shown us more of the ruleset (I'd like to see some stuff on the classes we don't know much about yet) but so far I'd say I'm getting a better game than I was expecting (though I'll admit to being a bit disappointed with crafting no longer being a skill...not sure how it will work now.)

[Adhin]

Pretty sure the crafting wasn't even dependent on the crafting skill for anything. Think it just lowered cost of things or... something. Still curious to what exactly is involved though either way as a universal 'crafting skill' was awkward.

[mcmanusaur]

Pretty sure the crafting wasn't even dependent on the crafting skill for anything. Think it just lowered cost of things or... something. Still curious to what exactly is involved though either way as a universal 'crafting skill' was awkward.

 

I was never sure what the "crafting skill" represented, whether this was equivalent to smithing and armor/weapon maintenance, or some sort of general mechanic... but I guess now that it's been removed it doesn't matter. I didn't like the idea of a skill called "crafting" but I still don't know enough about how it would have worked to be able to tell whether I'll miss it or not.

Edited July 11, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[mcmanusaur]

I want the game to play exactly the same as the IE games. That doesn't mean i want D&D ruleset.

 

But isn't the ruleset one of the greatest determinants of how a game "plays"? How else would you define "how it plays"? Just based on the inclusion of features present in IE games, and the exclusion of those absent therein?

[Micamo]

But isn't the ruleset one of the greatest determinants of how a game "plays"? How else would you define "how it plays"? Just based on the inclusion of features present in IE games, and the exclusion of those absent therein?

It depends on what you mean by "how a game plays." If you interpret "play" as the literal motions of the mouse and keys, then yes, ruleset is a big part of what determines that (the other major factor is the UI).

 

However, I think it's more useful to interpret it another way: How does the game feel when you play it? For the sake of discussion let's define the feeling of playing a game as that game's aesthetic of play. The aesthetic of play of a game is (partially) determined by its mechanics, but you can arrive at the same aesthetic of play through multiple routes.

 

To make an analogy, if the aesthetic of play were a bowl of ice cream, the mechanics would be the spoon. Mechanics are the method by which you experience a game, not the game itself. Mechanics become meaningless when dissociated from the aesthetic they're intended to create: The spoon doesn't get you very far if you have nothing to eat with it. Likewise, you can serve the same aesthetic with radically different mechanics and different aesthetics with the same mechanics applied in a different context. Just look at how different in feel the IE games are when they (mostly) use the same engine and ruleset.

[Adhin]

Most of the IE 'feel' difference amongst them selves is just in the setting. Though PST does have that snazzy right-click menu...

 

I'd say 'feel' of play has a lot to do with animations, how fast characters move in general, how fluid mouse movements and the like are. It sounds like a no brainer but a lot of games can screw that up A LOT. How fluid is the camera? does it have a build up on when holding a key down, how responsive is it when you mouse-drag the screen, or when you corner hold the cursor to move it? All of that can make or break how the game 'feels' even when the math behind the combat and 'mechanics' are all the same.

 

Rules and setting are also big parts of it, of course. It takes all of it to make a game feel truly great in my opinion, fail to hard on either side and it feels either watered down, lacking in some way or just plane clunky.