Hit & Miss - Finalized/Updated?

[J.E. Sawyer]

IMO, that type of paladin hasn't really been supported in the core class rules of any edition of A/D&D.  Smite is about the burliest divine attack that paladins get in 3.X and even that is limited-use, Charisma-dependent, and alignment-dependent.  The closest you could get to what you're describing using standard rules was getting to 4th level spells (at 14th/15th level), which granted access to Holy Sword and Dispel Evil in 3.X and a variety of things in 2nd Ed.  Those spells are also things that 2nd Ed./3.X paladins get relatively late in their career.

 

And while it's cool that paladins can do those things and PE's paladins will likely be able to do similar things, I still believe that narrowly-focused, limited-use abilities like Smite or various holy-oriented spells are very different from something like Sneak Attacks (whether in 3.X or 4E).

[J.E. Sawyer]

Ok, so I'm late to the party here, but how "big" is a 5 point difference in accuracy vs. deflection score?  Will I be unable to crit half the enemies I encounter (presuming approximately same level) because they have good armor?  At the beginning of the game this difference may be huge, but late game will it be trivial (>=5% chance to crit a guy in blue steel plate, 0% to a gal in marginaly shiny blue steel plate)?

 

Armor doesn't affect Deflection, it contributes to Damage Threshold.  Shields, however, do affect Deflection.  5 points of Accuracy or defense (of any kind) in PE is roughly equivalent to +1 in D&D.

[Lephys]

In that light though, can we choose to obscure target "DCs" or "ACs" in the combat log on top of disabling the stat pop-ups to make it like the Infinity Engine games (my suspicions tell me that by default Eternity will show the target values for rolls).

I would think so. At least in certain circumstances. There's a difference between obfuscating the workings of the system, and simply limiting the player's/characters' knowledge. You may come upon some creature, and not know how many hitpoints it has (how much punishment it takes before it dies). Kind of like in the Baldur's gate games (or, I think Fallout did the same thing?), in which you didn't necessarily know something's total HP, but you could gauge how its current health compared to its total (wounded, badly wounded, almost dead, etc.).

 

That being said, concealing certain factors somewhat counteracts the transparency you had. Take damage-dealt, for example. Doesn't do much good to understand how everything works if you have to constantly calculate your damage because the game won't tell you how effective your hits are. Even though that's a little abstract; you probably wouldn't know EXACTLY how much damage you'd dealt to a living being with a given sword blow, shy of "that obviously hurt it pretty badly" or "that clearly barely scraped it."

 

But, with DC and AC ratings and such, that's not quite the case. And, of course, if you just want to be super hardcore, I think that should be an option. The "Don't ever show me anything because I want to have to figure it all out" option. It would be a simple "show this or don't show it" toggle. But, aside from that, I think the best way to handle it is to have clearly defined circumstances under which such ratings are understandably unknown to the player, and clearly defined methods of discovering the rating values.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I could see a more offensive Paladin in PE. He would focus more on offense boosting auras, pick talents that increase offensive capability, and equipment selection. Do Paladins have a smite-ish ability, perhaps something similar to the Pathfinder ability "Aura of Justice"?

[J.E. Sawyer]

I could see a more offensive Paladin in PE. He would focus more on offense boosting auras, pick talents that increase offensive capability, and equipment selection. Do Paladins have a smite-ish ability, perhaps something similar to the Pathfinder ability "Aura of Justice"?

 

Whether as a Talent or a core Ability, they will likely have something Smite-ish.  Smite-like.  Smitey.

[jethro]

 

Yes, I know, but my point was that party buffs are great, but most people who choose to play a warrior class (or any class for that matter) in a crpg as their player character, are going to also want to be fairly proficient at opening a can of whup ass when in combat.  It would be a bit odd to be the hero of a story (and paladins are likely to draw the hero wannabe types) and walk away from a game thinking, "gosh, I remember the time I buffed the crap out of the party during that epic battle with the lich!", instead of, "gosh, I remember that time the time I destroyed the lich with my special attack as my party members rallied around me."

 

I'm not saying it's impossible that Obsidian has included such abilities; just that Josh Sawyer's post worries me that balancing and roles  might lead to a class like the Paladin being fairly flavorless as a player character for those who would want to play the heroic leader type.

 

If every class has to whup ass in combat equally to every other class, why have different classes at all? Sure, there are different damage types, but to really have *tactical* combat you need a little more difference between the classes. If you can't identify with someone not having the most damage output, your choices are limited anyway.

 

You also hopefully know that a leader, heroic or not, is there to lead and direct his comrades, not to hammer on some enemy/enemies and ignore the rest of his troope (except in chinese heroic movies, where the generals do just this).

[curryinahurry]

^ I didn't use the word equal, did I?  

 

If Sawyer is right in his statement about active use abilities, that could be fine.  I just think that the system runs the risk of creating bland play-styles for certain character classes if it gets too concerned with roles in combat.   Leader or no, a person playing a game with a specific character and class is going to want to feel relevant both in and out of combat, and garner his/her share of glory; whether that comes from AOE damage, backstabbing, or something else is particular to the class.  For melee oriented characters, this comes more from active participation than passive buffing imho.  

[Chairchucker]

I just think that the system runs the risk of creating bland play-styles for certain character classes if it gets too concerned with roles in combat.   Leader or no, a person playing a game with a specific character and class is going to want to feel relevant both in and out of combat, and garner his/her share of glory; whether that comes from AOE damage, backstabbing, or something else is particular to the class.  For melee oriented characters, this comes more from active participation than passive buffing imho.

Personally I think the opposite is true. I've played RPGs where the role of every character was to do as much damage as feasible in subtly different ways, and tactically it was very much a case of "whoever's closest go over there and beat this man severely" or "everyone dogpile the fragile looking chap at the back." Characters who are more effective when I'm not ordering them to cave someone's skull in might cause me to do something other than 'select all, attack target.'

[Arkeus]

If Sawyer is right in his statement about active use abilities, that could be fine.  I just think that the system runs the risk of creating bland play-styles for certain character classes if it gets too concerned with roles in combat.   Leader or no, a person playing a game with a specific character and class is going to want to feel relevant both in and out of combat, and garner his/her share of glory; whether that comes from AOE damage, backstabbing, or something else is particular to the class.  For melee oriented characters, this comes more from active participation than passive buffing imho.  

I have two things to say to this:

 

First, it's that you are playing a party, not a character. As such, not every characters need to have the same amount of 'attraction', as long as they are equally powerful in their own way.

 

Second, different people like different play-style. I am sure you mean nothing by it, but a LOT of people love playing buffers but find 'bashing enemies' boring, and so on.

[curryinahurry]

^ Certainly, some do prefer playing buffers, support, or  multitude of other styles.  My point has been, since my first comment, that we were promised a system with the latitude to accommodate different styles, but the concept of different classes occupying in strict roles could work in opposition to such a claim.  I use the paladin as an example of a melee class that has at its core concept a supporting role in buffing others, that could be a problem to someone who wants to play their paladin in a more aggressive, active style.  

 

Josh Sawyer has stated that abilities would allow flexibility for such a class to play a bit more actively, but we will have to see just how far this goes.  My comments aren't about restricting choice or valuing one play style over another; they are about allowing greater flexibility, and the use of party roles worries me in that regard.

[Karkarov]

IMO, that type of paladin hasn't really been supported in the core class rules of any edition of A/D&D.  Smite is about the burliest divine attack that paladins get in 3.X and even that is limited-use, Charisma-dependent, and alignment-dependent.  The closest you could get to what you're describing using standard rules was getting to 4th level spells (at 14th/15th level), which granted access to Holy Sword and Dispel Evil in 3.X and a variety of things in 2nd Ed.  Those spells are also things that 2nd Ed./3.X paladins get relatively late in their career.

 

And while it's cool that paladins can do those things and PE's paladins will likely be able to do similar things, I still believe that narrowly-focused, limited-use abilities like Smite or various holy-oriented spells are very different from something like Sneak Attacks (whether in 3.X or 4E).

Just as an aside this is a primary concern I have had from way back.  I know this isn't D&D and we won't be using D&D rules but I am still concerned we will be looking at D&D for inspiration.  It concerns me for 2 reasons.  1: D&D is well... a poorly balanced game these days and was outright broken in 3rd Edition.  2: It is taking more and more and more inspiration from MMO's.  MMO's use the trinity (like I said before) for a very specific set of reasons.  The Trinity style combat was designed specifically for MMO's.  I can't help but feel like there are better ways to do things in small team single player games.

 

Just to be specific I am not knocking the game, concerned, nor do I feel the overall subject of the thread how deflection works is poorly done or anything like that.  I just hope there is enough freedom to make say a Fighter who is not a tank with a shield but instead some sort of battle juggernaut who still gets outdpsed by others but does real damage and makes up for weak "tanking" with greater mobility or combat options.  Etc etc.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Karkarov

[Pray]

I'm glad my very first post grew into a great discussion! I learned so much about that game, and really hope to learn more about the character classes! 

[IndiraLightfoot]

Many of the party-based RPGs Obsidian has made (and others too), I have soloed after a while, and enjoyed it immensely too.

Reading Josh's great response about how each party member contributes to the party so much that he misses each one as soon as he took it out from the group, I am a bit curious about how my solo attempts will fare. Have you Obsids designed the game at all with us masochistic soloers in mind, or is it just "the game is soloable", but you'll get a extremely tough ride given the fact that it's all designed to be party-based?

 

Were NWN2 and the IWD-games, for instance, made to be soloed in some respects? I mean, it really worked well. The same goes for DS III, but it was a whole lot harder. I managed to crawl through in hardcore mode there, but at times I thought it was too difficult.

[IndiraLightfoot]

My question above got answered in Josh GDC Next 10 Talk thread in General Discussions a few hours back:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64587-josh-sawyer-gdc-next-10-talk/page-2

Edited November 8, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[J.E. Sawyer]

Just as an aside this is a primary concern I have had from way back.  I know this isn't D&D and we won't be using D&D rules but I am still concerned we will be looking at D&D for inspiration.  It concerns me for 2 reasons.  1: D&D is well... a poorly balanced game these days and was outright broken in 3rd Edition.  2: It is taking more and more and more inspiration from MMO's.  MMO's use the trinity (like I said before) for a very specific set of reasons.  The Trinity style combat was designed specifically for MMO's.

 

D&D is more well-balanced in 4E than it has been in any previous edition, IMO.  Like every edition of A/D&D, it falls to pieces at high levels, but the class balance is much better than it was in 3.X.  D&D Next certainly isn't taking more and more inspiration from MMOs.  If anything, it's moving many mechanics back to 3.X (e.g. saving throws and spells/day).

 

4E also doesn't use "the trinity", though classes are grouped into four categories.  In PE's classes, the association with various types less explicit.  We identify the various things classes are good at and to what extent, relative to other classes.  In a class-based system, I think it's a good idea to identify the core strengths of each class, regardless of how they can be diversified.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Speaking of class diversity: Will different classes have different xp tables, even with different paces to them internally? I realize it's old fashioned and unpractical, but I somehow imagine magic users and paladins levelling harder than the fighter, not to mention the bard: "Bards are a special profession, as they have already earned levels as fighter and thief. Once they begin gaining experience as bards, each must pay tuition to his respective college. These payments and donations must be at least 50% of all monetary gains plus and additional 1,000 gp per level upon gaining a higher one" (sic! AD&D DM Guide, p.86).

 

Edit: I also want to see xp diversity so that levelling the party won't be a synced calculus fest each time. And it was cool when thieves gained a lot of fast high levels too once upon a time in the D&D spectrum. 

Edited November 8, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[Karkarov]

4E also doesn't use "the trinity", though classes are grouped into four categories.  In PE's classes, the association with various types less explicit.  We identify the various things classes are good at and to what extent, relative to other classes.  In a class-based system, I think it's a good idea to identify the core strengths of each class, regardless of how they can be diversified.

Fair enough.  You and the Obsidian team as a whole have been very clear about each class having strengths since the kickstarter itself, no one can find any fault with that either every class needs something to make it stand out.  I just hope that there is still room for diversity without completely compromising effectiveness.  Either way I trust you guys to get it done, there is certainly no dev out there with more experience at this type of game.

[Cubiq]

Spells work like any other type of attack.

Uh so they get reduced by armor also?

[Tamerlane]

Armour doesn't much care if that rock it just got hit by was picked up off the ground and thrown from some dude's hand or conjured into existence and thrown via telekinesis.

[Sensuki]

Armor does reduce spell damage, yes.

[Cubiq]

Armour doesn't much care if that rock it just got hit by was picked up off the ground and thrown from some dude's hand or conjured into existence and thrown via telekinesis.

What about other type, like elemental, corruption, soul draining, choking, affliction?

I'm sure wizards won't just be throwing rocks at people.

[Sensuki]

There are a few elemental resist types - Shocking is one, Fire, Cold and Acid are probably others.

 

If you see a guy in Plate Armor, zap him with a Lightning Bolt, +50% damage lol

[Cubiq]

I think it's the same with flame or any other elemental type, if someone put on an iron plate armor now and stood in front of a flamethrower i'm sure he would succeed in fusing himself with the plate he's wearing, right before dropping dead.

 

So i'm wondering why armor has anything to do with spell damage, unless we are talking about some kind of ranged auto attack that the wizard has, but i haven't heard anything about that.

[teknoman2]

There are a few elemental resist types - Shocking is one, Fire, Cold and Acid are probably others.

 

If you see a guy in Plate Armor, zap him with a Lightning Bolt, +50% damage lol

that is actually wrong scientifically speaking. the people working on high voltage lines wear chainmails to redirect electricity toward the ground without it going through their bodies. what a metal armor is actually weak against is fire: once heated, metal takes forever to cool without the help of a liquid thus boiling the wearer alive

Edited November 10, 2013 by teknoman2

[Tamerlane]

Making a full suit of armour behave like a Faraday cage would be realistic, but I guess this is one area where intuitiveness is more important.

 

Magic not always ignoring armour is A Good Thing, at the very least. There will doubtless be some spells that don't give a damn about it, and lots that target reflexes and psyche rather than deflection, but spellcasters never caring about an opponent's armour is boring as all heck.