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

[forgottenlor]

I also think I'd have gone with Duelist or Assassin over rogue, but I don't find names all that important. The Barbarian as an AOL character is interesting. I forgot about that description. Properly buffed he may replace a fireball flinging mage. If he also can run through opponents quickly to get at a spellcaster, he can replace alot of what a wizard could do in IE games.

[Sensuki]

Not really. The AoE of the Barbarian's Cleave will probably be small, whereas a Wizard will have a lot of larger radius AoE spells. Wizards have their Blast passive ability that they can use when equipped with an implement (wands etc) to dish out regular low damage AoEs kind of similar to a Barbarian's cleave but I assume with the risk of friendly fire. I don't think the Barbarian's ability has friendly fire.

 

Invisibility is out as a wizard spell afaik, but there might be a short-range teleport. If there is, the teleport will always be safer, but it will probably be a per-rest use ability; whereas the Barbarian's Wild Sprint can be risky if they get targetted by a melee opponent mid sprint.

[Lephys]

The very concept of a Rogue (in any combat capacity) has always been spike damage, hasn't it? The Rogue is the class who tries to get the most done with the least amount of effort. It's just like thievery and all that that typically (but not always) goes with the territory. You don't beat someone senseless, then forcibly pry things from them. You either steal it without anyone even noticing (whenever the best opportunity comes), or you maybe kill them very, very efficiently (while no one's looking/noticing), then take what you want. Hence backstab. Not frontstab. Not "You know I'm here, but this is just a really, really strong attack to overcome you"-stab. Backstab. Sneakity stab. Sneakity-yet-well-placed-stab.

 

8P. Even in the context of WoW, they still get the most crits and single-hit damage. Which, in the numbers, basically creates spikes.

[Sensuki]

Yes but in 2E/3E they were not the highest DPS melee damage dealer. Some of us prefer the idea that the Fighter is better at fighting than the Rogue is.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Sensuki

[Nonek]

Being in WOW is a fairly good reason for excluding something isn't it?

[Lephys]

Being in WOW is a fairly good reason for excluding something isn't it?

I can't tell if you're being silly by ragging on WoW, or if you're 100% serious in response to what I said.

 

Just in case, I'll clarify by pointing out that I said "even in WoW." WoW being the least-likely thing to look to for... integrity, for lack of a better word, and yet STILL bearing this same specific representational aspect of the Rogue class.

[Nonek]

I'm being silly, don't particularly like this modern representation of Fighters and Rogues that every game has to use, but it's not really a serious matter as i'll just avoid using them in game.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Yes but in 2E/3E they were not the highest DPS melee damage dealer. Some of us prefer the idea that the Fighter is better at fighting than the Rogue is.

I can deal with the fact that Rogues are able to "spike" damage through Sneak Attacks or using short-term buffs, but it would piss me off if they have a higher base damage than Fighters, who are supposed to be the best at fighting.

[Sensuki]

Prepare to be pissed off (for the record, I don't like it either but it's waaaay past debating).

[curryinahurry]

Prepare to be pissed off (for the record, I don't like it either but it's waaaay past debating).

  Do you have a specific source for this?  Base damage, not spike or enhanced damage vs deflection etc.

[PIP-Clownboy]

I'm being silly, don't particularly like this modern representation of Fighters and Rogues that every game has to use, but it's not really a serious matter as i'll just avoid using them in game.

 

Yeah, modern MMOs are abysmal and they ruin everything

 

EQ/AC/UO were pretty cool circa 1999 when it was new and shiny but **** what the genre has become and the influence it has had on the industry. 

Edited October 4, 2013 by PIP-Clownboy

[Hormalakh]

 

It's the same as barbarian as a class. A lot of this stuff has been talked about already. It comes down to the fact that players don't like too much change from the original recipe and that the creators of D&D didn't know what the hell they were doing.

Well, it's OE's phault to a point. They could have changed the classes completely like Cipher and chanter, not naming them after D&D. **** Rogue, call him Assassin. Knight or warrior intead of Fighter. Shaman  instead of Druid etc.

If they wanted to change the mechanics to resemle something of a MOBA, they should have shred the D&D conection entirely. D&D was quasi-simulationist, and that is people assosiate with these names. Sawyer's philoshophy doesn't agree with that.

 

Long post short, the classes are the problem and not their design.

 

 

If people thought that the mechanic design was based off of MOBA's, we'd have a riot on our hands. Josh Sawyer has never come out and said this directly, so it's not really clear if this is truly the case. For the most part, Josh has always backed up his desgin philosophy by talking about elements found in classic RPG games.

 

But I agree with you. I would have much rather had

 

Wizard,

Cipher,

Assassin (although again, this has historical significance),

Warrior,

Druid,

Priest (another one that was changed, although....priest is hardly the best term for them), 

Chanter (changed)

Mortificant (as opposed to monk),

Berserker (as opposed to barbarian),

Warlord (as opposed to Paladin, another one with a lot of drama),

Ranger.

 

Utlimately, it doesn't much matter as long as there is sufficient lore to explain why each term was used for their respective combative genre. Ciphers has such an explanation. Monks do too, at least partially.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Hormalakh

[PrimeJunta]

Mm. I've been puttering around in Storm of Zehir a bit again. I gotta say that that game makes the "utility character" really sumthin-sumthin'. My party leader is, shall we say, not optimized for combat. Instead he's got all the skills that are useful on the map. He's a human rogue with INTO 18 and one level of wizard and ranger to unlock Survival, Spellcraft, Craft Armor and a few others, plus Able Learner. He is without a doubt the single most fun and useful character in the party, because of that world map. The rest of the party are min-maxed wrecking balls so it doesn't really matter that he can only get the odd arrow in in combat; in fact that's kind of part of the fun -- and I think that making him excel at combat as well would have detracted from the experience.

 

So it's not like you can't have a D&D-style party-based cRPG where a "utility character" is fun.

 

But. Storm of Zehir is a bit of an unusual game. It's really crying out for a character like that. The world map makes it so. Without that world map, that skill-machine would be just dead weight. I could've distributed the most important skills across the party while making only minimal compromises to their combat effectiveness, and gotten one more min-maxed wrecking ball, which would've been a signficant bump up in power.

 

I guess that kind of puts me in two minds about this "all classes fight equally well, but differently" thing. If the game really is combat heavy, and if there is no pay-off for making one guy the skill machine, then I guess that's the way to go. But if they take a lot of inspiration from SoZ, I think I'll miss my cerebrally-oriented explorer who just sits on a rock while his companions deal with the opposition.

Edited October 4, 2013 by PrimeJunta

[Sensuki]

Do you have a specific source for this?

Post #25 of this thread, 3rd quote which is from Something Awful and there are probably 4-5 similar quotes on there, formspring and even here I think.

 

They probably don't do higher base damage (but they might?), but they have Sneak Attack which is a percentage bonus to damage based on flanking, crit more often and most a lot of their abilities are very focused on doing more damage to one target. According to Josh rogues require moderate micromanagement, so you will have to do a bit of re-positioning and whatnot.

 

Fighters do reliable per hit damage. A Fighter and a Rogue with the same attributes, the same level and the same weapon might do the same per hit damage just standing there, Fighters will hit slightly more often but Rogues automatically have a higher DPS just from the crit bonus. All a Rogue has to do to get the edge is flank, or switch on an active that provides higher damage.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Sensuki

[Jarmo]

Even in D&D3 rogue had the highest DPS.. provided the hits connected and he was flanking.

2E rogues only had the... was it backstab, that worked only for one hit. Which is something I'd prefer, but I'm old so there.

 

I'm expecting PE rogues to be as accurate as fighters, do as much damage,

but have talents to help with flanking and to do more damage when flanking. Not ideal but tolerable. 

If rogues simply have higher base damage, that's something I'd have an issue with.

 

Ranger simply doing more damage.. are they going to?

Or is it ranger + animal companion that together do as much more damage as is the companions share?

If it's the ranger doing more damage and the companion does plenty on top of that, then.. it's going to be plenty of damage.

[curryinahurry]

 

Do you have a specific source for this?

Post #25 of this thread, 3rd quote which is from Something Awful and there are probably 4-5 similar quotes on there, formspring and even here I think.

 

They probably don't do higher base damage (but they might?), but they have Sneak Attack which is a percentage bonus to damage based on flanking, crit more often and most a lot of their abilities are very focused on doing more damage to one target. According to Josh rogues require moderate micromanagement, so you will have to do a bit of re-positioning and whatnot.

 

Fighters do reliable per hit damage. A Fighter and a Rogue with the same attributes, the same level and the same weapon might do the same per hit damage just standing there, Fighters will hit slightly more often but Rogues automatically have a higher DPS just from the crit bonus. All a Rogue has to do to get the edge is flank, or switch on an active that provides higher damage.

 

 

Ok, I had read that, thanks.  Its a bit open to interpretation base damage wise and sneaks don't bother me too much, especially with deflection counters.

 

More crits than fighters is a bit of a problem as a fighter, in the way I think we all understand the term, should be the class most proficient and well trained in martial weapons.  

 

Rogues really become squishy killers in this system it would seem; a dex based fighter.  

 

meh,  I hope they develop these classes in more interesting ways, or that elective talents allow us to do so.

[Sarex]

Maybe fighters will have higher consistent damage output, as in the damage done over time would be equal or higher then that of the rouges.

 

What I'm really bothered with is paladins being passive meat shields, I really hope they get a Holy Avenger type weapon to offset their low stats.

[Sensuki]

I hope they develop these classes in more interesting ways, or that elective talents allow us to do so.

I'm pretty sure that's correct. Class abilities direct toward playing a certain way and you will probably be able to augment the default functions or purchase a bit of flavour with optional talents.

 

Here are some other Rogue related quotes

 

Rogues are close-range (mostly melee, but some ranged) weapon-based characters who spike large amounts of damage into individual targets (the most of any class) and are good at rapidly escaping from melee enemies. They can't hold a position against melee enemies like fighters, they can't deal close-range AoE damage to a group like barbarians, they have no support abilities like paladins, and they don't have the wacky status effects and damage absorption of monks. If you need to hit a target really hard or take it from relatively low hit points to DEATH immediately, they're better than any other class.

The magical abilities that rogues gain access to are all optional Talents, so if you want to play a "mundane" rogue who just augments their general murdering skills, you can do it.

You can ditch the rogue if you want to, but you will be dropping the class with the highest single-target, single-hit melee damage potential and some nice mobility Abilities.

rogues are the best single-target, single-hit damage dealers of any class (yes, significantly better than fighters)

The rogue's Finishing Blow does much, much more damage if the target is under 50% Stamina (and, in fact, increases proportionally the lower the target's Stamina is).

[Karranthain]

I hope that they retain their (earlier mentioned) philosophy of a large degree of flexibility within the classes. And, unfortunately, I too must agree that I don't particularly fancy the MMO influenced roles (something which 4E of D&D also had, as far as I know).

 

That doesn't mean that I think that the earlier editions of D&D had it completely right, though. It's just that I don't like this particular direction. But as usual, I'd wait until we hear more.

 

Thanks for putting in the effort of gathering the information for us, Sensuki.

 

 

[Sensuki]

Trancendent Suffering is automatically turned on when Wounds is active and applies fire damage to the Monk's fists.

Whoops that ability is actually called Turning Wheel. Transcendent Suffering is the supah-powah fists.

[JFSOCC]

well, lets hope multiclassing is in (I know, probably not) so I can multi my rogue with monk

[curryinahurry]

 

rogues are the best single-target, single-hit damage dealers of any class (yes, significantly better than fighters)

 

Yeah, I forgot about this one...maybe I tried to block it out subconsciously.   I'm going to be really annoyed if orlan rogues are crit-ing for 200 damage with daggers while an Amauan fighter with a claymore is maxing at 120 on his / her crits.

 

This is one for the thread on immersion.

[Iucounu]

yeah well, if the thief's superior damage-output is dependant on sneak attacks or something similiar, it's not really much of a change? Otherwise, if they also have the highest direct combat damage, I'm not sure if "thief" is a fitting name for the class anymore..

But if it's dependant on something like sneak-attacks, I repeat, it's not really that different from the IE games. In BG 2, I once played an assasin (still a thief) who had more often than not the highest damage-output in combat. One sneak attack made like 100 damage, often an insta-kill. Then I'd hide in shadows again (especially fast with seven-league-boots) and make another sneak attack. That way, I could easily outperform even two front-fighters at once, and get rid of dangerous opponents very fast. 

[JFSOCC]

This is how I imagine my rogue being awesome in combat

[Sensuki]

yeah well, if the thief's superior damage-output is dependant on sneak attacks or something similiar, it's not really much of a change?

One of the difference between the 2E/3E Rogue and the 4E/MMO style Rogue is that in D&D 2E and 3E, the Thief/Rogue had a lower base attack bonus than a Fighter did so they hit less often. Backstabs and Sneak Attacks were situational and required Invisibility, Hide/Move Silently, Status Effects etc etc. Melee weapons also required Strength for bonus damage (which Rogues generally did not have heaps of).

 

the 4E/MMO style Rogue doesn't have that accuracy deficit, have optimal damage output based on their build and have a much easier time getting off that bonus damage.

 

The P:E Rogue will still be able to most likely deal more damage than a Fighter even without their flanking bonus due to the higher crit range and active use abilities.