Project Eternity class primer (as of 3/10/13)

[Iucounu]

sounds like a fighter with a special fighting style, who also happens to have a skill/ability set that you'd usually associate with a thief. I'd have prefered the damage-output to be more dependant on situational circumstances, but well. Perhaps in the end, it's rather the name of the class that's unfitting, and not the class itself. or whatever. 

[Greensleeve]

This is how I imagine my rogue being awesome in combat

 

A problem with this fighting style is that it's only really useful against others with knives and no armour. Try those techniques against someone with even just a breastplate and a longsword, and the knife-fighter probably wouldn't even get close. 

 

However, I do agree that grappling would be a cool part of knife-fighting. Grapple someone, then stab them in their throat, armpit, groin, etc. That would be effective and interesting to see, if very difficult to properly implement in a isometric game like P:E.

[eimatshya]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does having a higher single target damage output automatically make a rogue the best fighter?

 

I haven't played WoW in a long time, so I don't know how it is now, but back in the day, my defensive warrior could beat most rogues in a one on one fight, even though they had a higher damage output.

 

Admittedly it varies from game to game, but there's potentially more to fighting than just raw DPS. The rogue may specialize in precise, crippling attacks but would lack the versatility and resilience of the fighter.

Edited October 5, 2013 by eimatshya

[Sensuki]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does having a higher single target damage output automatically make a rogue the best fighter?

 

I haven't played WoW in a long time, so I don't know how it is now, but back in the day, my defensive warrior could beat most rogues in a one on one fight, even though they had a higher damage output.

 

Admittedly it varies from game to game, but there's potentially more to fighting than just raw DPS. The rogue may specialize in precise, crippling attacks but would lack the versatility and resilience of the fighter.

A Fighter can beat a Rogue in a 1v1. But of the characters in your party the Rogue will do more total damage to enemies than your Fighter would.

[JFSOCC]

A problem with this fighting style is that it's only really useful against others with knives and no armour. Try those techniques against someone with even just a breastplate and a longsword, and the knife-fighter probably wouldn't even get close.

Actually disarming/blocking is a key part of kali, the idea is that you close the distance as quickly as possible, and then block the open and free movement of your opponents limbs. This eliminates the benefit of reach weapons quickly. And I'm OK with the rogue not being very effective against highly armoured opponents, although if you have someone's limbs locked, you can pick where you strike, and you'd only need a small opening.

Alternatively you could switch to the bastons, which blows would be felt through the wearers armour.

[eimatshya]

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does having a higher single target damage output automatically make a rogue the best fighter?

 

I haven't played WoW in a long time, so I don't know how it is now, but back in the day, my defensive warrior could beat most rogues in a one on one fight, even though they had a higher damage output.

 

Admittedly it varies from game to game, but there's potentially more to fighting than just raw DPS. The rogue may specialize in precise, crippling attacks but would lack the versatility and resilience of the fighter.

A Fighter can beat a Rogue in a 1v1. But of the characters in your party the Rogue will do more total damage to enemies than your Fighter would.

 

 

Yeah, but again, I don't see how this makes the rogue the "best fighter". It makes them the best at dealing damage but not at fighting overall. Best in one area of fighting doesn't mean best fighter.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

From what I understand, the Rogue will be able to deal massive amounts of damage through sneak attacks and hitting weak points, which is very similar to the Rogue archetype I'm familiar with. I'm perfectly fine with this, as long as Fighters have a superior base damage and hit chance.

Edited October 5, 2013 by KaineParker

[Sensuki]

Best in one area of fighting doesn't mean best fighter.

Some of us prefer the idea that the Fighter is better at fighting than the Rogue is.

If you're referring to that quote of mine, that is me referring to the fact that the 2E/3Eism of the Figher being a higher flat damage class than the Rogue is. a 2E/3Eism that many people enjoyed.

 

The P:E Fighter design is more tank/controller oriented and is based off the Fighting style that J.E. Sawyer's 4th edition Earthstrength Warden character employed. The design is still very fightery, but it's more the style of a Fighter that takes the Expertise feat rather than a Fighter that goes for max whoop-ass.

 

I'm allowed to not like the fact that the Rogue and Ranger are the highest damage classes, just as I am allowed to prefer the older style Wizard, Pre-buffing (which I think is out), and save or die effects.

 

Despite the Class Design not being my 1st preference, I think the overall design is good and I'm keen to see it in action.

[eimatshya]

 

Best in one area of fighting doesn't mean best fighter.

Some of us prefer the idea that the Fighter is better at fighting than the Rogue is.

If you're referring to that quote of mine, that is me referring to the fact that the 2E/3Eism of the Figher being a higher flat damage class than the Rogue is. a 2E/3Eism that many people enjoyed.

 

The P:E Fighter design is more tank/controller oriented and is based off the Fighting style that J.E. Sawyer's 4th edition Earthstrength Warden character employed. The design is still very fightery, but it's more the style of a Fighter that takes the Expertise feat rather than a Fighter that goes for max whoop-ass.

 

I'm allowed to not like the fact that the Rogue and Ranger are the highest damage classes, just as I am allowed to prefer the older style Wizard, Pre-buffing (which I think is out), and save or die effects.

 

Despite the Class Design not being my 1st preference, I think the overall design is good and I'm keen to see it in action.

 

 

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to prevent you from voicing your opinion.

[FlintlockJazz]

I agree, some of the names no longer adequately describes the class anymore or pigeon-holes them to a concept when it can now apply to other concepts too I feel.

 

The rogue is one in particular I'm feeling this for.  I'm going to go on a tangent here but bear with me as I will come to the topic of the thread. 

 

If you read any of my posts in a thread about the rogue that was going a while back before we knew what the PE rogue was going to be you know that I have some 'issues' with rogues as they have been in games before: I find many of the 'features' of the rogue to be skills that every adventurer should have or at least have access to but have been 'ring-fenced' off to just the rogue.   Stealth is something every class would find useful, even a mighty warrior needs to be able to get into position for ambushes and a wizard would want to take the route of discretion in some cases, and I have always viewed the typical adventuring party as a small strike force that would realistically need to be stealthy when invading dungeons or infiltrating enemy strongholds.  Backstab or sneak attack is something that I view any warrior with any skill should be able to pull off since taking someone by surprise should give you a bonus regardless.  Not only does the rogue typically call dibs on these skills to define itself but it also doesn't allow other classes in many of the games they are in to 'fill in' for them like you can do with for instance a barbarian taking the place of a fighter (a barbarian might not be as effective or work the same way as a fighter in a fighter role but he can compensate for it).  If you want to disarm traps or pick locks you inevitable have to take a rogue/thief, despite a ranger being ideal for also being a trap disarmer or a bard being perfect for having the pick locks skill (in D&D 3.5 the bard can only pick pockets, not locks).  This makes it awkward in computer RPGs because by making all these skills rogue-only you then either have to build the game assuming the player will have rogue, putting in traps and locks that needs the rogue touch in order to progress or get the decent stuff, forcing the player to take one along, or assume that player doesn't have a rogue and just make all the traps and chests bypassable or even just ignorable and make the rogue irrelevant.  The latter occurred in NWN2 official campaign: since unless you were playing a rogue you only had Neeshka who was a rogue and so the campaign couldn't assume you would be taking her along all the time, making many of her features irrelevant.

 

The rogue needs to ring fence these skills because they are often all that defines it, give them to other classes and it becomes apparent that the rogue not only doesn't really have a role but that the role it had could have been fulfilled by a dexterity-focused fighter with skill points.  By balancing classes so that they are all equal in combat and out of combat Obsidian have actually shown this, the rogue was a specialised fighter that should not have really been considered a 'core class' all this time like the other three.  They've needed to find a role for the rogue in combat and unfortunately they seem to have gone the MMO route of DPS, while relegating the role of fighter to tank.  Despite all those sword and sorcery stories in which the warrior faces off against the evil wizard or demon or whatever one on one RPGs these days instead seem to stick him in the role of tank, being a punchbag that for some reason everyone will focus on instead of the more threatening classes around him.  Meanwhile, the rogue seems to have become the damage dealer, and ironically seems to be less of a 'rogue' than ever.  Really, what the class is now appears to be more 'offensive fighter' to the fighter's 'defensive fighter'.  I would say the name should be changed to something like 'Duelist' or 'Weaponmaster' or something and have the 'rogue skills' like pick locks detached as specialist skills for it so that it can instead be used for a wider range of character concepts instead of 'dodgy guy', especially since apparently they are supposedly great with two-handed weapons like estocs and pollaxes now. 

 

And speaking of the specialist skills, they raise the question: will you need the bonus the class gives to those skills like pick locks, or can you make do with a class that just invests points in without the bonus?  It's the same old problem you had when the rogue had exclusive lockdown on those skills, unless other classes also get a bonus to those skills, like the ranger getting a bonus to disarming traps like I mentioned they should get earlier. 

 

Now, I'm not totally opposed to a rogue or similar class being the 'damage dealer', and I understand the need to make all the classes useful in combat, and that the fighter should not be the ultimate class that can do everything in combat, but lets not make the mistake of having the one class be the only one for that role like it was with the rogue and rogue stuff, lets have another class that can do huge single person damage too so that we have a choice!

 

EDIT:  In short, I think 'rogue' is more a mindset than a class, and that if you want to play a roguish character you just build your class with a specialisation in that direction.  Makes making roguish mages easier for example.

 

That's my opinion anyway, take from it what you will.

Edited October 8, 2013 by FlintlockJazz

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

@Flintlock IIRC, while the bonus is helpful, you should be able to take "traditional" Rogue skills with any class and be competent enough.

 

I would agree that the PE Rogue description more accurately describes Assassin, and frankly think the idea of pigeon-holing classes into roles is bad. However, if they manage to accomplish allowing classes to fill other roles than they are designed to be "role-ready" for, I will be happy. While I have no real problem with an Assassin trained to exploit weak points dealing the highest damage, the idea that a warrior class(Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian) can't at least be competitive(reach around 90%) would be pretty bad, IMO.

[Lephys]

Is the concern over the Rogue being "significantly better than a Fighter" at single-target, spike damage stemming from the idea that the Fighter's going to be inherently inferior to the Rogue? Because damage, alone, is meaningless without also observing the method by which the damage can be dealt. What I mean is, you're not going to just have a Fighter and a Rogue, side-by-side, each auto-attacking another enemy, head-on, with the Rogue doing significantly more damage, and the Fighter doing way less, with all other factors exactly the same.

 

If the Rogue isn't used differently, he'll die. The Fighter is supposed to have better means of taking on opponents (even if he isn't necessarily slaying them the fastest). He can easily survive head-on conflicts while still dealing damage and whatnot. Whereas, the Rogue, while wielding higher damage numbers, has to actually deliver that damage to the enemy. That's probably why he's better with spike damage, because you're not going to be standing around consistently dealing more damage than the Fighter with a basic, head-on auto-attack.

 

And the reason he's better with crits than the fighter isn't because he's that much better trained with weapons. It's because he gets the jump on people, as opposed to blatantly engaging them. That's what's silly about Rogues having passively high crit chances and still just standing around attacking people, like in MMOs. They don't just magically stab people more precisely despite being in direct conflict. They attack more intelligently/efficiently, avoiding head-on conflict as much as possible.

 

The role difference isn't formed from crit chance and spike damage values. Those are just results of the difference. The difference encompasses how the class plays/behaves/functions.

[Sensuki]

Now, I'm not totally opposed to a rogue or similar class being the 'damage dealer', and I understand the need to make all the classes useful in combat, and that the fighter should not be the ultimate class that can do everything in combat, but lets not make the mistake of having the one class be the only one for that role like it was with the rogue and rogue stuff, lets have another class that can do huge single person damage too so that we have a choice!

Ranger.

 

And there's probably other classes not far behind if built correctly.

[FlintlockJazz]

@Flintlock IIRC, while the bonus is helpful, you should be able to take "traditional" Rogue skills with any class and be competent enough.

 

I would agree that the PE Rogue description more accurately describes Assassin, and frankly think the idea of pigeon-holing classes into roles is bad. However, if they manage to accomplish allowing classes to fill other roles than they are designed to be "role-ready" for, I will be happy. While I have no real problem with an Assassin trained to exploit weak points dealing the highest damage, the idea that a warrior class(Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian) can't at least be competitive(reach around 90%) would be pretty bad, IMO.

 

From what I have read, the bonus is supposedly 'enough' that if the character puts no points in the skill he is supposed as good or almost as good as someone who doesn't have the bonus but has put max points into it.  My question is that, will someone need to put max points into the skill and have the bonus to be able to be able to deal with everything in that field or will there be very little point to invest so heavily?  I hope it's the former but then I hope more than one class covers each skill. 

 

I also hope that other classes can be built to fulfill the damage dealer role as well, but the way they have spoken about the rogue it sounds like it's THE damage class and that if you don't have a rogue you'll "miss out on dealing huge damage!"  I suspect this may just be salesmanship, they are trying to big it up to sell us on the concept and that it's not going to be as extreme as it sounds, so I probably shouldn't worry.  It's just so damn awkward seeing segments of the game concept separate from each other and not being able to compare, plus I've always said that us players never know what they really want! :D

 

 

 

Now, I'm not totally opposed to a rogue or similar class being the 'damage dealer', and I understand the need to make all the classes useful in combat, and that the fighter should not be the ultimate class that can do everything in combat, but lets not make the mistake of having the one class be the only one for that role like it was with the rogue and rogue stuff, lets have another class that can do huge single person damage too so that we have a choice!

Ranger.

 

And there's probably other classes not far behind if built correctly.

 

 

Well, we don't know how close the ranger comes to the rogue except that the latter is the best at single hit damage.  We also don't know how well other classes can be built to do the same, see my response to KP for further details.  This is just the impression I have got from reading what they have put out and am aware that it's probably nothing.

[Sensuki]

Well, we don't know how close the ranger comes to the rogue except that the latter is the best at single hit damage.  We also don't know how well other classes can be built to do the same, see my response to KP for further details.  This is just the impression I have got from reading what they have put out and am aware that it's probably nothing.

If you trawl through J.E. Sawyer's formspring, posts on this forum and SA posts you'll find most of the info regarding what I said. If you're still unsatisfied, you could always send him a formspring question.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Well, we don't know how close the ranger comes to the rogue except that the latter is the best at single hit damage.  We also don't know how well other classes can be built to do the same, see my response to KP for further details.  This is just the impression I have got from reading what they have put out and am aware that it's probably nothing.

If you trawl through J.E. Sawyer's formspring, posts on this forum and SA posts you'll find most of the info regarding what I said. If you're still unsatisfied, you could always send him a formspring question.

 

 

I'm not questioning your info, sorry if it came across as that, it's just my interpretation of what the info could imply.

[Sensuki]

I'm not questioning your info, sorry if it came across as that, it's just my interpretation of what the info could imply.

No what I meant was, you could always ask him about it. He usually replies although lately he hasn't been posting on formspring that much.

 

I asked him on Something Awful so if he replies I'll post the quote.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Sensuki

[Sensuki]

Got a reply

 

Despite the fact that they have some decent group damage effects, ciphers can also be pretty "burly" with single-target damage.

 

If rangers and rogues shouldn't be top-dogs at dealing damage, what aspect of combat should they be good at? In our long-running 4E game, our ranger was easily the king (queen) of damage but she would get quickly annihilated if enemies closed with her. My warden bordered on indestructibility but was pretty ho-hum when it came to dealing damage. In the grand scheme of things, the damage he did was chump change compared to his marks and status effects he carried around with him.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

From what I have read, the bonus is supposedly 'enough' that if the character puts no points in the skill he is supposed as good or almost as good as someone who doesn't have the bonus but has put max points into it.  My question is that, will someone need to put max points into the skill and have the bonus to be able to be able to deal with everything in that field or will there be very little point to invest so heavily?  I hope it's the former but then I hope more than one class covers each skill. 

 

I also hope that other classes can be built to fulfill the damage dealer role as well, but the way they have spoken about the rogue it sounds like it's THE damage class and that if you don't have a rogue you'll "miss out on dealing huge damage!"  I suspect this may just be salesmanship, they are trying to big it up to sell us on the concept and that it's not going to be as extreme as it sounds, so I probably shouldn't worry.  It's just so damn awkward seeing segments of the game concept separate from each other and not being able to compare, plus I've always said that us players never know what they really want! :D

Honestly, I really don't know the exact amount of the bonuses. I assume(perhaps wrongly) that it will be similar in magnitude to the PF bonus(+3).

 

Got a reply

 

Despite the fact that they have some decent group damage effects, ciphers can also be pretty "burly" with single-target damage.

 

If rangers and rogues shouldn't be top-dogs at dealing damage, what aspect of combat should they be good at? In our long-running 4E game, our ranger was easily the king (queen) of damage but she would get quickly annihilated if enemies closed with her. My warden bordered on indestructibility but was pretty ho-hum when it came to dealing damage. In the grand scheme of things, the damage he did was chump change compared to his marks and status effects he carried around with him.

 

So Ciphers can be good at it. What about Paladins, Barbarians, Fighters, and Monks? I don't care if they aren't able to beat the Rogue(or Ranger) in high-single target damage, if the damage they are able to inflict isn't chump-change.

Edited October 10, 2013 by KaineParker

[Sensuki]

They are using a 100 point scale instead of 20, so it will be more like +15, +25 etc

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

They are using a 100 point scale instead of 20, so it will be more like +15, +25 etc

Oh I know, that is why I said similar in magnitude.

 

I have to wonder what this means for enchanted weapons, will we be seeing +15 swords?

[Sensuki]

I don't think we'll be seeing a numeric distinction, probably categorical.

[Nonek]

I don't really have a problem with Rogues and Rangers being the superior fighters, but I always saw them as invaluable because of their usefulness. They were respectively kings of their enviroment, Ranger obviously in the wilderness and Rogue in the city.

 

With their animal companions, mage and druid spells and various abilities Rangers were a tremendously useful class, that were virtually obligatory when one ventured beyond the bounds of the city. Content and optional paths almost wrote themselves when a Ranger was present, and in combat he could hold his own, especially with the extra d8 at first level. Don't really see a need to also make him inflict massive damage, in fact I didn't know that he did, I wonder why he does so now?

 

Rogues, well there were a million uses, paths and schemes that a cunning rogue could make use of. For one his quick level progression usually kept him a level or two beyond everybody else, two his skills and role as a scout usually meant that he was hoovering up the majority of experience in any given scenario, three his skills could open up alternate pathways and reveal hidden information that was enormously useful. I could go on but in short the Thief usually served as the most active and involved member of the party, especially when one hit the city, where his skills would dominate all others players and really dictate the gameplay. I saw no need to make them any more effective in combat, they were allready the masters of their enviroment, especially with the acrobat skills that Unearthed Arcana introduced.

[sarkthas]

Oh I know, that is why I said similar in magnitude.

I have to wonder what this means for enchanted weapons, will we be seeing +15 swords?

 

If I recall correctly, there wouldn't be restrictions on race, alignment or class in regards to who could wield them. That's a thing I will miss personally=P

 

Although I never play Paladins, thus I could never use Carsomyr, but pff there were plenty of other interesting items. 

[Lephys]

For the record... He didn't say the damage was chump change... he said it was chump change "compared to his marks and status effects he carried around with him."

 

I think a lot of these notions about what classes are good at and what they aren't so good at are getting a bit misconstrued. I don't think any of the classes are going to be incapable of dealing damage. They're not gonna do like 5% of some other class's damage. It's a relative difference between classes. One class can do OODLES of single-target damage without being OP. Why? Because they can't really do anything else. So, where other classes are dealing with the situation, that class has to run away, or reposition, or go get some protection buffs, etc.

 

It's like the Rogue versus Fighter. Sure, the Fighter does less direct damage, but he fights way better and can wade into far more foe-riddled situations. The Rogue has to hit-and-run, more or less. The Ranger's cool as long as he's being covered. But, if 8 skeletons are charging him, to quote the film 300, his "numbers will count for nothing." In other words, you can't assess the AMOUNT of damage a class is capable of dealing in isolation from the ability to effectively deal that damage.

 

The very simple example being weapons. If a hammer does 700 damage, but only swings once every 10 seconds, it's still doing "the most damage." But, a dagger might only do 50 damage, but attack every single second. The dagger has a lot more opportunities to attack than the hammer. And that's just a single factor. You've got all the other factors governing when and how effectively you can deliver your attacks.

 

Doing the most damage doesn't mean dealing the damage isn't trickier.