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

[FlintlockJazz]

 

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.

 

 

Ah okay, thanks.  Easy to misinterprete people on forums so I thought I should make it clear.

 

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.

 

 

Cheers for the info, interesting about the ciphers.

[PIP-Clownboy]

 

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.

 

 

I'm a bit worried about Barbs. AOE melee seems like a pretty crappy niche.