Character Rollaholic - Mea Culpa

[Kjaamor]

What I'm not liking is the moving towards generic rather than specific.

 

Agreed, and I think you back this up with good points. Hopefully, despite the frequent suggestions towards the generic, the final game will contain enough specificity to make those snowflakes. We shall see, but I do find that quite troubling.

 

At a risk of grognarding, I find most of the weapon mechanics to be worrying. Obviously adaptive tactics should be at the core of any rpg worth its salt, but the good IE games made damage-switching useful but not mandatory and I, personally, didn't always have other options. I'm getting an image of a PE where your whole party has a blunt weapon, a slashing weapon and a piercing weapon, and a leather armour, a chain armour and a plate armour. The further you go down that line, the more combat becomes dull workmanship. I know it's a different type of game, but I'm instantly remembered of the painful combat from FFX. 3 enemies, one is weak to quick attacks, one is weak to magic attacks, one is weak to strong attacks, and you fight that fight repetitively over the entire course of the game.

 

On the other hand, I'm currently playing BGII again, and my front-line fighters have multiple damage types, because of their slots and weight allowance (although all have a mainstay), but the mid and back-liners are basically stuck with whatever type they're proficient with. I've tried to get a mix of damage types to hold my own in some encounters, but enemies with large resistances in certain areas will take time and need extra tactics.

 

Anyway, that was a tangent and it remains to be seen how the game will turn out in that regard.

 

Elsewhere...

 

Mages Can't Use Swords, Clerics Can't Use Blades, Fighters are Incapable of Striking Up Meaningful Conversation...

 

It's a lonely spot I'm in, but I love this. I'm not saying that it has any logical real world bearing, but I think it makes for an excellent gameplay mechanic, and it also helps to in character definition. Characters and classes are both defined not only by their strengths but also by their weaknesses. It helps to encourage classes toward their natural roles, which for a single class character is exactly what should occur.

 

Another lonely spot I sit in, is my love for D&D 2.0 multi-classing. You choose to multi (or dual) class, and you essentially get a mixture of the strengths and weaknesses of the classes you choose, and will grow powerful enough (arguably bar triple-classing) in both but not as powerful as a single classed character in either. All multi-classes are viable, some more useful than single classes, some less. I never got on with the 3.5 system that for all the world seemed to be a case of 'Most powerful is single class; then single class with one level of fighter; then enough levels of whatever to unlock your prestige class' and any other mixture was a waste of time.

 

Dice Rolling Stats

 

Yeah, they should probably go. I find it sort of fun, but it's definitely lowest common denominator fun.

 

Rollaholic?

 

Absolutely and categorically. It's probably my favourite part. I have rolled hundreds if not thousands of rpg characters, many of them in games I have never played. Only earlier today I rolled four different D&D 4.0E characters. I don't know anyone who plays the game and don't own it myself.

 

Rolling for Personality, Culture, History and Separating Combat from those

 

I like the idea in theory, it's one thing Arcanum presents as a good idea. Unfortunately, I have not yet seen it particularly well-implemented and, before people start pointing out obvious logic, while that doesn't mean it can't work well in the future the track record would suggest that definition based upon in-game choices tends to be more immersive. The most obvious immediate example of this I can give, is that I got a far greater sense of the world knowing who I was in Fallout 2, than I did in Arcanum or NWN2.

 

Obviously it's not set in stone, and if PE can pull it off then I'd be really excited, but I think it's better to not do it at all than mention it once and then forget it. Ymmv.

 

On a related subject, though, one thing that frustrates me in D&D is the way personality becomes tied to class by the names of the statistics. Any moderately capable wizard is intelligent (maybe...), any moderately capable sorceror is the life and soul of the party (not sure...), and cleric worth his salt is at least moderately wise (I'm out...).

 

I know it ultimately just comes down to names, but it's a real pet hate of mine. Fiction is full of brainless wizards, smart swordsmen and charming, er, monks (bad example). I'd love it if PE would use rather different names for those relevant stats - maybe Arcane Power/Divine Power/Diabolical Power or something. Even just Magic/Religion. I don't mind my fighter having no magical power, I just object to him defaulting as an idiotic, sightless bar-steward just because I put points where the game told me rather than RPing.

[Micamo]

Mages Can't Use Swords, Clerics Can't Use Blades, Fighters are Incapable of Striking Up Meaningful Conversation...

 

It's a lonely spot I'm in, but I love this. I'm not saying that it has any logical real world bearing, but I think it makes for an excellent gameplay mechanic, and it also helps to in character definition. Characters and classes are both defined not only by their strengths but also by their weaknesses. It helps to encourage classes toward their natural roles, which for a single class character is exactly what should occur.

I disagree: This sort of asymmetry works for games where you select from multiple pre-generated characters like in a JRPG or in a fighting game, but is ultimately self-defeating in a game where you build your own characters. If you want asymmetries between various combat roles then build trade-offs within the system, rather than put characters into arbitrary archetypes: What that gets you is that each adventuring party looks exactly the same.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Micamo

[TrashMan]

Too many optiosn can be bad too.

There is a KISS principle, a fine balance between meaningfull stuff and a bajjilion +1/-1 bonuses penalties for irrelevant things.

[Kjaamor]

I disagree: This sort of asymmetry works for games where you select from multiple pre-generated characters like in a JRPG or in a fighting game, but is ultimately self-defeating in a game where you build your own characters. If you want asymmetries between various combat roles then build trade-offs within the system, rather than put characters into arbitrary archetypes: What that gets you is that each adventuring party looks exactly the same.

 

I would argue that having class limitations does far less to leave an adventuring party the same than their removal does. The hard limits in the Baldurs' Gate games, for example, do not prevent a wide variety of parties and roles from functioning. Equally, the restrictionless building of games like TES, and FF's VII and X, mean that all characters inevitably become almost exactly the same in the end.

 

Also, if you're building trade-offs, then you are simply changing colour of your arbitrary archetype from being a class thing to a skill/anti-skill thing.

 

Too many optiosn can be bad too.

There is a KISS principle, a fine balance between meaningfull stuff and a bajjilion +1/-1 bonuses penalties for irrelevant things.

 

One of the reasons why I actually think 2.0 is quite underrated as a mechanic, especially for cRPGs.

[Valorian]

I'm getting an image of a PE where your whole party has a blunt weapon, a slashing weapon and a piercing weapon, and a leather armour, a chain armour and a plate armour. The further you go down that line, the more combat becomes dull workmanship.

Yes. There's a tear-sized drop of tactics involved (armor type will be shown in a tooltip anyway) and much more [please-why-you-force-myPC-to-fight-with-flails-he-loves-his-swords] tedium. Removes an aspect of a character concept, but doesn't strenghten combat tactically.

Sure, keep the bad damage type penalties, but halve them.

 

Positioning, intelligent usage of abilities and spells, and prioritizing targets offers enough tactical cogitation.

 

 

 

Mages Can't Use Swords, Clerics Can't Use Blades, Fighters are Incapable of Striking Up Meaningful Conversation...

 

This can be addressed with starting proficiencies (if you lack them, you can still use the weapon, but with considerable penalties).

Indeed, warrior classes have weapon proficiencies from lvl 1 because they enjoy the benefits of.. being warriors. Tough luck for the mage who has to spend a talent slot and pick the proficiency to not be lousy at hitting with weapons.

 

 

Oh, there's also (yes I totally wanted to write this before I clicked the reply button) the strange case of defenses in PE and the difference between classes in this regard.

In short, all classes have the same starting defenses* and they improve universally by +2 for all classes as they level up.

*The flavor difference at start that amounts to a few points, on a d100 doesn't count. In most cases the difference between classes is less than +1 translated to d&d mathematics.

 

They could have capitalized on the fact that they use a d100 by differentiating the defenses advancement to +1/2/3, or make the starting difference meaningful, but they chose to have warrior classes and library classes be equally skilled at not getting hit. Of course, we can expect pickable class specific talents that will bump your defenses. Which doesn't suppress the uniform and sterile advancement system though.

 

Also, I'm sure that in the new and improved attribute system with no dump stats whatsoever, the wizard will benefit from the universal defense stat as every other class. It will make his magical defense shield more magical.

 

 

 

[Lephys]

I would argue that having class limitations does far less to leave an adventuring party the same than their removal does. The hard limits in the Baldurs' Gate games, for example, do not prevent a wide variety of parties and roles from functioning. Equally, the restrictionless building of games like TES, and FF's VII and X, mean that all characters inevitably become almost exactly the same in the end.

The point isn't the existence of any restrictions. It's the specific restrictions.

 

And knocking some of these class restrictions doesn't make all characters the same. Just because a Wizard can be stealthy doesn't mean you're definitely going to make that Wizard a master of stealth. Why? Because the restriction of such a build choice costing points is still in place. And that's the trade-off. The more points you spend on making that Wizard super sneaky, the fewer you get to spend on making him super-anything-else.

 

The lack of a "that class can't be sneaky" restriction doesn't automatically encourage you to spend your precious, finite points on sneakiness. You're not going to build a party of 6 Master Stealthists simply because they all have the potential to be built stealthily.

 

The problem with the TES style isn't that you can do anything, but rather that you can do everything.

 

That being said, I'm not even advocating every class being able to do anything. But, I think the difference in their core abilities and functionality is plenty, without role/fighting style/stat restrictions and such. A Wizard already doesn't get awesome melee sword attack abilities and Defender mode for extra melee engagement, etc., so he's already different from a Fighter, even if you let them both master the Sword. Nothing encourages a Wizard to forego his spells and rely completely on a sword for all his effectiveness.

[Lephys]

They could have capitalized on the fact that they use a d100 by differentiating the defenses advancement to +1/2/3, or make the starting difference meaningful, but they chose to have warrior classes and library classes be equally skilled at not getting hit. Of course, we can expect pickable class specific talents that will bump your defenses. Which doesn't suppress the uniform and sterile advancement system though.

Did they talk about how they're handling this between specific classes? (I'm merely curious if I missed it). All I remember seeing is Josh saying that, for example, a Rogue (and a couple of other classes?) will get a + 2-or-3 permanent bonus to Stealth. But, as far as I know, we don't know how the DCs will be handled, or how point gaints will be paced, etc. Even though 3 isn't much out of 100, like you said, how do we know 3 points won't be valuable?

 

For example, with the attack/defense numbers, any class that gets a +3 to attack will have, say, 10 instead of 7 attack at the beginning. But that number isn't compared to 100 to get your to-hit chance table. It's compared to the enemy's defense. So, if the average enemy defense is 7 for that level/area/what-have-you, then the person with 10 could potentially have significantly shifted hit and crit chances, as compared to the person with only 7 attack (any doesn't-get-a-bonus class), depending on how the math is handled. Maybe each additional point of difference between your attack and the foe's defense offers a diminishing effect, so that even a few points of difference is significant, but gaining a level and getting 7 points ahead doesn't give you a 70% chance to crit and no chance to miss. *shrug*

 

I just don't know that it's worth deciding that a few points doesn't matter, until we know how they're handling the math. And if "we" know that info already, actually, and I just missed it, then please disregard all this, and I would like to know that info as well if you'd be so kind as to point me to it. I do understand the concern for the points being too insignificant, though. I sincerely hope they aren't.

[Gromnir]

we were gonna write a viscous denunciation o' d&d 2e character generation and progressions. the thing is, we knows of at least a couple folks at obsidian who is even less fans o' d&d 2e than is Gromnir. so, no point for us to do the knacker's work on this particular horse as chances o' pe character development or progression resembling d&d 2e in any meaningful way is approaching nil.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Messier-31]

Creating a character is time-consuming. But creating a character that you can identify with and/or have tremendous time playing needs time. Like in a pen-and-paper RPG - it is your character, so you gonna stick with it for some time. Better make it worth your while.

[Kjaamor]

we were gonna write a viscous denunciation o' d&d 2e character generation and progressions. the thing is, we knows of at least a couple folks at obsidian who is even less fans o' d&d 2e than is Gromnir. so, no point for us to do the knacker's work on this particular horse as chances o' pe character development or progression resembling d&d 2e in any meaningful way is approaching nil.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Indeed. It seems like the majority of people prefer 3.5, and I find it utterly believable that more than a few of the Obsidian folks feel the same way. I don't suppose that P:E's character development will be anything like 2.0 either, I was just pointing out my lonely preference.

 

The problem with the TES style isn't that you can do anything, but rather that you can do everything.

 

Yeah, it's a fair cop. Two separate issues.

 

I don't know, to put the matter very simply I'd sooner have a brick wall than be offered the opportunity to walk in 11 different directions of wilderness rather than stay on the road. It's very much a personal preference, but I feel that 3.5 offers many more choices but even fewer meaningful ones. Ultimately meaningless choices don't really add to the experience.

 

Again, though, I'm very much in the minority with this.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Kjaamor

[Valorian]

 

They could have capitalized on the fact that they use a d100 by differentiating the defenses advancement to +1/2/3, or make the starting difference meaningful, but they chose to have warrior classes and library classes be equally skilled at not getting hit. Of course, we can expect pickable class specific talents that will bump your defenses. Which doesn't suppress the uniform and sterile advancement system though.

Did they talk about how they're handling this between specific classes? (I'm merely curious if I missed it). All I remember seeing is Josh saying that, for example, a Rogue (and a couple of other classes?) will get a + 2-or-3 permanent bonus to Stealth. But, as far as I know, we don't know how the DCs will be handled, or how point gaints will be paced, etc. Even though 3 isn't much out of 100, like you said, how do we know 3 points won't be valuable?

 

For example, with the attack/defense numbers, any class that gets a +3 to attack will have, say, 10 instead of 7 attack at the beginning. But that number isn't compared to 100 to get your to-hit chance table. It's compared to the enemy's defense. So, if the average enemy defense is 7 for that level/area/what-have-you, then the person with 10 could potentially have significantly shifted hit and crit chances, as compared to the person with only 7 attack (any doesn't-get-a-bonus class), depending on how the math is handled. Maybe each additional point of difference between your attack and the foe's defense offers a diminishing effect, so that even a few points of difference is significant, but gaining a level and getting 7 points ahead doesn't give you a 70% chance to crit and no chance to miss. *shrug*

 

I just don't know that it's worth deciding that a few points doesn't matter, until we know how they're handling the math. And if "we" know that info already, actually, and I just missed it, then please disregard all this, and I would like to know that info as well if you'd be so kind as to point me to it. I do understand the concern for the points being too insignificant, though. I sincerely hope they aren't.

 

 

1. They did.

We (or rather, some of us) know 3 points won't be very valuable because logic/mathematics.

 

2. There's no reason to warp the mathematics. The shift of 2 points will be a shift of 2 points. How do we know? Because logic/mathematics. Using logic/mathematics and applying it to what has been written about shifting the to-hit scale, we can safely assume that a character with 3 more accuracy points compared to the target's defense will crit on 93-100 instead of 96-100 and have a 3 points lesser window to outright miss on the other end of the scale.

 

3. It's ok Lephys.

This will perhaps help you:  http://eternity.gamepedia.com/Attack_Resolution

[Tsuga C]

I'd like the attributes to matter quite a bit: STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS and CHA or whatever it is in PE, should have a more than notable effect on one's character's strengths and weaknesses, and it should work that way even when your level 5 or 10.

This works best in a Low Magic milieu where magic is limited in power, frequency, or both. It's also my preference, but I'm thinking that Obsidian is going for a different sort of setting with soul magic being well-nigh commonplace and quite powerful.

 

There should be heaps and heaps of skill choices, and those skills should be possible to continue to increase as you level up, a bit like 3.5 Ed D&D,...

You'll get no arguement from me here. We don't need 3 dozen classes, just the old standards with plenty of customization options.

 

Picking gender, height, weight and perhaps age...

Obsidian created NWN2 and offered these options via sliders and I see no reason why P:E should be any different. They did it once and I'm sure that they can do it again, although I must concede that the fixed isometric format gives them less incentive to do so.

 

And, yes, I love creating characters, too.

[Kjaamor]

1. They did.

We (or rather, some of us) know 3 points won't be very valuable because logic/mathematics.

 

2. There's no reason to warp the mathematics. The shift of 2 points will be a shift of 2 points. How do we know? Because logic/mathematics. Using logic/mathematics and applying it to what has been written about shifting the to-hit scale, we can safely assume that a character with 3 more accuracy points compared to the target's defense will crit on 93-100 instead of 96-100 and have a 3 points lesser window to outright miss on the other end of the scale.

 

3. It's ok Lephys.

This will perhaps help you:  http://eternity.gamepedia.com/Attack_Resolution

 

 

[Lephys]

1. They did.

We (or rather, some of us) know 3 points won't be very valuable because logic/mathematics.

 

2. There's no reason to warp the mathematics. The shift of 2 points will be a shift of 2 points. How do we know? Because logic/mathematics. Using logic/mathematics and applying it to what has been written about shifting the to-hit scale, we can safely assume that a character with 3 more accuracy points compared to the target's defense will crit on 93-100 instead of 96-100 and have a 3 points lesser window to outright miss on the other end of the scale.

 

3. It's ok Lephys.

This will perhaps help you:  http://eternity.gamepedia.com/Attack_Resolution

I should've known better than to think you'd not answer like an arse. I think I can retain my manners in spite of this, though, with some effort.

 

Would you be so kind as to show me where (even on that gamepedia page) anyone definitively confirms that, just because your actual chance to hit for a given attack will be on a scale of 1-100, your actual Attack/Defense values will directly correspond to that scale and those chance-to-hit rolls, 1:1?

 

In other words, even "logic/mathematics" allows for the possibility that, say, 1 point of difference between your character's Attack value and the opponent's Defense value translates into a 5-point shift on the Miss-Graze-Hit-Crit scale.

[Valorian]

 

1. They did.

We (or rather, some of us) know 3 points won't be very valuable because logic/mathematics.

 

2. There's no reason to warp the mathematics. The shift of 2 points will be a shift of 2 points. How do we know? Because logic/mathematics. Using logic/mathematics and applying it to what has been written about shifting the to-hit scale, we can safely assume that a character with 3 more accuracy points compared to the target's defense will crit on 93-100 instead of 96-100 and have a 3 points lesser window to outright miss on the other end of the scale.

 

3. It's ok Lephys.

This will perhaps help you:  http://eternity.gamepedia.com/Attack_Resolution

I should've known better than to think you'd not answer like an arse. I think I can retain my manners in spite of this, though, with some effort.

 

Would you be so kind as to show me where (even on that gamepedia page) anyone definitively confirms that, just because your actual chance to hit for a given attack will be on a scale of 1-100, your actual Attack/Defense values will directly correspond to that scale and those chance-to-hit rolls, 1:1?

 

In other words, even "logic/mathematics" allows for the possibility that, say, 1 point of difference between your character's Attack value and the opponent's Defense value translates into a 5-point shift on the Miss-Graze-Hit-Crit scale.

 

 

It's ok Lephys. Take a deep breath, suppress the logorrhea and read the explanation:

 

The explanation is quite simple. There's no reason for a "1" to represent any other number when, you know... you can transform the "1" into a "5" and use it instead. If 1 point of difference translates into a 5 points shift, using a d100 would be superfluous.

 

Sure, Sawyer hasn't explicitly said they won't bend and twist simple mathematical calculations into an unintuitive mess, but I guess there's the possibility. He hasn't confirmed that 1 point of damage (per weapon description) doesn't translate into 5 points of damage (on the target) either, but we'll have to live with the dread of not knowing. 

 

I'm going to include your favorite "humoristic"-post smileys to make you less upset about things having simple and logical explanations: u_u 8P n_n

Edited August 31, 2013 by Valorian

[Lephys]

Sure, Sawyer hasn't explicitly said they won't bend and twist simple mathematical calculations into an unintuitive mess, but I guess there's the possibility. He hasn't confirmed that 1 point of damage (per weapon description) translates into 5 points of damage (on the target) either, but we'll have to live with the dread of not knowing.

So you don't actually know, then... Seemed like an awful lot of words to say "I don't really know for sure." Your complimentary belittlement is always appreciated, though. Helps keep me grounded, ^_^

 

Not that I possess reasoning skills, as you well know, but it just seems like maybe there could be a non 1:1 translation between attack/defense values and points on the 1-100 to-hit scale.

 

Exhibit A:

 

Level is a big factor in your total defenses, but the character's class determines the starting point of each defense stat (which can be further modified by attributes, spells, abilities, talents, and equipment).  For example, fighters start with the highest Deflection score and they maintain that advantage as they level up.  If a fighter really wants to focus on holding a line in melee over doing damage, he or she can equip a shield and gain an even larger Deflection bonus.  Unless you're higher level than the fighter, it's very unlikely that your Deflection-based attacks will come close to his or her Deflection defense, meaning you'll wind up missing a lot more than 5% of the time -- and it will probably be impossible to crit them.  If you want to hurt fighters, use attacks that target Reflexes or Psyche, which are their weakest base defenses.

It seems as though, either the Fighter's gonna get a crap-ton more points of starting difference than has been hinted at thus far, OR points actually don't translate 1:1. I mean, just because you're up against a Fighter, and you're not higher level than he is, you'll probably "wind up missing a lot more than 5% of the time"? Doesn't sound like a 3% shift to me.

 

Of course, it could be. It simply seems as though it might not be as you've assumed, is all.

 

Yours in Inferiority,

 

- Lephys

[Valorian]

 

So you don't actually know, then...

Not that I possess reasoning skills, as you well know, but it just seems like maybe there could be a non 1:1 translation between attack/defense values and points on the 1-100 to-hit scale.

No. Like I said, he hasn't confirmed that 1 point of damage (per weapon description) doesn't translate into 5 points of damage (on the target) either. We can't live with the dread of not knowing. You should ask for clarification immediately.

 

It seems as though, either the Fighter's gonna get a crap-ton more points of starting difference than has been hinted at thus far, OR points actually don't translate 1:1.

Yours in Inferiority,

 

- Lephys

What about.. neither.

Class abilities Lephys, like the one the fighter gets at level 1 (-accuracy +defense).

[Lephys]

No. Like I said, he hasn't confirmed that 1 point of damage (per weapon description) doesn't translate into 5 points of damage (on the target) either. We can't live with the dread of not knowing. You should ask for clarification immediately.

Excellent point! I wonder about that, too! I mean, if you have 30 Power, and then you've got a sword that deals 5-10 damage, do you deal 35-40 damage, as opposed to some other person with only 10 Power, with the same sword, doing only 15-20? Or does your Power modify your weapon's damage? Maybe stats, like Power (or whatever it shall be named) ARE on a d100 scale, but represent a percentage multiplier, so that 30 Power equals 130% of 5-10 damage?

 

I mean, I know logic and mathematics prove that numbers on a scale of 1-100 can only be added to produce other effects on a scale of 1-100, and that multiplication and other operations are quantum warpings of the math. But... you know... people like me don't know that. And I need people like you inform me just how incapable of comprehending it I am, while failing to actually explain, because of that very incapacity.

 

Numbers are pretty... 8P

 

What about.. neither.

Class abilities Lephys, like the one the fighter gets at level 1 (-accuracy +defense).

You mean Defender? The one that trades attack rate for the ability to engage +2 targets via the melee engagement system? Is it going to boost their Deflection value AND decrease their attack Accuracy AND decrease their attack rate AND grant them an additional 2 engagement targets? That seems a bit excessive... o_o

 

Also, Josh didn't mention an ability. He just mentioned a Fighter starting with more Deflection than other people. I figured he was referring to a passive difference, like the one you said was flavor because it was only a measly 2-3 points of advantage. Of course, maybe he wasn't...

 

I'm just curious for the details of the official system. You said you knew them, so I got a bit excited. But it turns out there are a few stray ones. Which is nothing to worry about. You were just trying to help, on account of my feeble-mindedness.

 

We'll find it all out, in due time, ^_^

[Valorian]

 

 

No. Like I said, he hasn't confirmed that 1 point of damage (per weapon description) doesn't translate into 5 points of damage (on the target) either. We can't live with the dread of not knowing. You should ask for clarification immediately.

Excellent point! I wonder about that, too! I mean, if you have 30 Power, and then you've got a sword that deals 5-10 damage, do you deal 35-40 damage, as opposed to some other person with only 10 Power, with the same sword, doing only 15-20? Or does your Power modify your weapon's damage? Maybe stats, like Power (or whatever it shall be named) ARE on a d100 scale, but represent a percentage multiplier, so that 30 Power equals 130% of 5-10 damage?

 

I mean, I know logic and mathematics prove that numbers on a scale of 1-100 can only be added to produce other effects on a scale of 1-100, and that multiplication and other operations are quantum warpings of the math. But... you know... people like me don't know that. And I need people like you inform me just how incapable of comprehending it I am, while failing to actually explain, because of that very incapacity.

 

Numbers are pretty... 8P

 

What about.. neither.

Class abilities Lephys, like the one the fighter gets at level 1 (-accuracy +defense).

You mean Defender? The one that trades attack rate for the ability to engage +2 targets via the melee engagement system? Is it going to boost their Deflection value AND decrease their attack Accuracy AND decrease their attack rate AND grant them an additional 2 engagement targets? That seems a bit excessive... o_o

 

Also, Josh didn't mention an ability. He just mentioned a Fighter starting with more Deflection than other people. I figured he was referring to a passive difference, like the one you said was flavor because it was only a measly 2-3 points of advantage. Of course, maybe he wasn't...

 

I'm just curious for the details of the official system. You said you knew them, so I got a bit excited. But it turns out there are a few stray ones. Which is nothing to worry about. You were just trying to help, on account of my feeble-mindedness.

 

We'll find it all out, in due time, ^_^

 

 

 

I'm wondering if you ever understand anything anyone says.

 

The subject wasn't modifiers, power or strength, but Lephys' maths: 1=5.

 

Yes, Defender. -attack speed, +defense

http://eternity.gamepedia.com/Fighter

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63020-project-eternity-update-36-off-to-our-elfhomes-but-first/

 

Seems the wiki has it wrong.

[Lephys]

I'm wondering if you ever understand anything anyone says.

 

The subject wasn't modifiers, power or strength, but Lephys' maths: 1=5.

You seem to do a lot of wondering. The fact remains that, as long as some factors utilize the individual points on the 1-100 scale, it still serves a purpose without every single factor (i.e. Accuracy/Defense difference) affecting the scale at a 1:1 ratio. If Accuracy/Defense is the only thing in the entire game that affects the actual results of the miss-graze-hit-crit scale for a given creature/character, then you'd be absolutely correct about any other ratio being pretty crazy. And that is a possibility. However, I can only comment on possibilities, until I know.

 

Yes, Defender. -attack speed, +defense

http://eternity.gamepedia.com/Fighter

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63020-project-eternity-update-36-off-to-our-elfhomes-but-first/

 

Seems the wiki has it wrong.

If that's the case, then it seems like an awfully potent ability, unless the attack speed decrease is quite drastic, I suppose.

 

And I don't know anything about how the wiki has it. I was referring to update 44:

 

• Fighters' Defender mode allows them to engage two additional targets and increases the range at which they engage targets. This gives fighters much greater capability to control the area around them.

That's +defense, +2 engagement targets, +engagement range, with only -attack speed as a cost. Just seems a bit heavy on the benefits for a single, modal ability, for what it's worth. *shrug*

 

I thought maybe they had replaced the increased defenses with the engagement bonuses, which still sort of works as a looser meaning of "melee defenses increase," since engagement is directly related to melee combat, and I think you suffer a defensive penalty versus attackers with whom you aren't directly engaged (flanking bonus or something?). I dunno, though. I couldn't find anything beyond neat pairs in the Engagement update, so it may just be that additional attackers simply don't have to worry about breaking engagement when they move or switch targets. I thought I had read something about additional attackers actually getting a bonus, though (because you're not actually reading and responding to their attacks, because you're pre-occupied), but I don't know that I'm not mis-remembering.

[Valorian]

 

I'm wondering if you ever understand anything anyone says.

 

The subject wasn't modifiers, power or strength, but Lephys' maths: 1=5.

You seem to do a lot of wondering. The fact remains that, as long as some factors utilize the individual points on the 1-100 scale, it still serves a purpose without every single factor (i.e. Accuracy/Defense difference) affecting the scale at a 1:1 ratio. If Accuracy/Defense is the only thing in the entire game that affects the actual results of the miss-graze-hit-crit scale for a given creature/character, then you'd be absolutely correct about any other ratio being pretty crazy. And that is a possibility. However, I can only comment on possibilities, until I know.

 

Why are you unnecessarily complicating things and drowning yourself in confusion even further.

 

What's the problem with a straightforward, logical and intuitive approach where "1" means "1" and "5" means "5" shifting the hit/miss scale accordingly?

7 (base) + 6 (3 levels) + 8 (shield) + 10 (ability) + 5 (talent) = 36 Deflection

 

Why would Obsidian change the ratio here instead of the values?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was referring to update 44:

This update is about Engagement. And they mentioned abilities that affect... engagement. (Please, I'm sure you can find something very humorous to say about such abilities u_u n_n ! We can't wait! U_U)

 

Update 36 describes the fighter's basic abilities.

 

I suppose the ability would not be called Defense if the only thing it does is increase the number of engaged targets.

 

It doesn't "seem like an awfully potent ability", because we don't know the actual.. numbers. Even when they do tell us the values, you'll still be very unsure if it's potent or not because of the ratio issue floating in your head.

 

[Lephys]

I suppose the ability would not be called Defense if the only thing it does is increase the number of engaged targets.

Well, it isn't called "Defense." It's called "Defender." Also, the word "defense" merely suggests protection, but not the target of that protection. Defender allows the Fighter to engage more targets, thereby "defending" his allies against those targets' attempts to rush past him and attack said allies.

 

*shrug*

 

Anywho, back to the actual topic, I'm sure that, however all the mechanics specifically work together to affect things, the dev team has put (and/or is putting) careful consideration into how the starting differences are a significant factor in rolling a character. And I patiently await an official update on the matter, details and all.

[Silent Winter]

For a minute I thought I'd clicked the wrong thread

 

When I get PE installed, I'll probably roll up a quick test-character to check out the first area and then spend ages rolling up various characters to explore the character creation system before settling on one I like best.

[Valorian]

 

Well, it isn't called "Defense." It's called "Defender." Also, the word "defense" merely suggests protection, but not the target of that protection. Defender allows the Fighter to engage more targets, thereby "defending" his allies against those targets' attempts to rush past him and attack said allies.

 

 

You're correct, it's called defender and not defense. Responding to your posts has become a boring mechanical process for me so I sometimes make little typing mistakes.

 

The word defender suggests.. defending. And you need some deflection for that. You're not really a defender if the 3 baddies you engaged stomp you in 2 seconds and proceed to slaughter everyone else.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

For a minute I thought I'd clicked the wrong thread

Me too.