Josh Sawyer interview: on combat, companions and character building

[Stun]

And about the subject of this thread, my main problem is that i do not really understand all the design features for combat J.Sawyer presented in the article. My english is not good enough to figure out the details about wizard's spells use. I just understood he'll use a grimoire. (kind of strange to find a french word in there)

<----Native English speaker here. Trust me, it's not all that clear to me either. When it comes to combat features/mechanics, Sawyer and crew have been maddeningly vague. As it stands, I feel more in the dark on it now than I did before we were told anything.

 

Ok, In this interview (and in others), Sawyer has stuck to just describing the Perameters of everything. 2 Examples:

 

1) There's no Round or turn system ala the Infinity engine games and AD&D.

-Alright. And? What does this mean, exactly? Does it mean that a mage can cast a spell every second without pause? That a fighter's attack volume is 100% dependent on how fast he can swing his weapon and nothing else? And here's a bonus question: if my Barbarian is using a Sword and shield, will I have the option to forgo a blocking action with my shield in favor of 2 swinging actions with my sword in the same time frame instead?

 

 

 

2) Classes won't be as rigidly defined as they are in D&D and the infinity engine games.

-in the IE games, you knew your classes. You are a Rogue. And Rogues can't wear heavy armor. They can't use shields. They can't use Greataxes, 2-h swords or Polearms. etc. But in Eternity we're told that all these class-based restrictions are.... removed in favor of an "every class starts out virtually the same and then branches out in their own direction as they advance" system.

 

K.... I can wrap my head around that, I guess. It's a system somewhere in between Skyrim and D&D 3.5. But.... I still want to know some fundamental details. For example, Can I make a Mage who wears Heavy armor, and uses a Giant Axe, and will there be mage skills/talents/perks to allow me to use my Armor and axe more effectively? And if so, then by definition, aren't I playing a fighter at this point instead of a mage?

Edited December 18, 2013 by Stun

[Lephys]

the one thing that strikes me as completely odd with this game how they treat men and women completely equaly

that just doesn't fit 16th century..

also lots of interesting gender based dialog options wasted here if you are playing a female character (which i am)

 

Neither does soul magic (fit 16th century, that is).

 

All I mean is, there's just as much room for different social customs in fiction as there is for magic. Now, I'd very much expect for there to still be various factions/peoples/individuals with extreme gender bias, or, at the very least, just cultural ways of treating males in a different manner than females, even if it's not so much a "you have fewer rights 'cause of your gender" sort of way.

 

As in your finishing line, there, I'd be a bit disappointed, with regard to this, if your character's gender had no bearing on dialogue options and reactivity throughout the gameplay. However, if the whole world doesn't lock their daughters in towers and sell them for baby-birthing capabilities, I'm cool with that fictional deviation.

 

@ Stun:

 

I'm right there with you on wanting more details, but they've actually provided a pretty decent amount of information. Granted, it'll be nice when it's actually all together. As it stands, it's spread across various threads, cross-forum postings, and interviews.

 

Regarding the "there's no round anymore" thing, yes, it basically just means that everything won't be metronomed to the exact same rhythm. It's really not all that different from before, because various actions still took varying amounts of time to perform, even though they all started at the same time in BG and such. If you're not currently performing some other action, you can immediately begin performing an action. But, everything's designed accordingly, so you're not going to just be able to infinitely use/cast some instant ability. Josh has mentioned plenty of things that delay actions, such as switching grimoires, (or I think even cycling weapons), etc.

 

Basically, it's not going to be that the round-rhythm restriction was the only thing referee-ing ability use, and they just ripped it out of the IE games' design or something. The game's designed without rounds in mind.

 

And as for the classes... yes, it's different. But I wouldn't say all classes start "virtually the same." They are no longer defined by extraordinarily hard/absolute restrictions now, but they still are more skillful/more sucky at various things. He's specifically mentioned Fighters getting a bonus to Accuracy with melee weapons, which other classes don't get. So, even as a fresh, baby, LvL 1 adventurer, a Fighter is going to function noticeably differently from a different class.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Lephys

[DCParry]

 

And about the subject of this thread, my main problem is that i do not really understand all the design features for combat J.Sawyer presented in the article. My english is not good enough to figure out the details about wizard's spells use. I just understood he'll use a grimoire. (kind of strange to find a french word in there)

<----Native English speaker here. Trust me, it's not all that clear to me either. When it comes to combat features/mechanics, Sawyer and crew have been maddeningly vague. As it stands, I feel more in the dark on it now than I did before we were told anything.

 

Ok, In this interview (and in others), Sawyer has stuck to just describing the Perameters of everything. 2 Examples:

 

1) There's no Round or turn system ala the Infinity engine games and AD&D.

-Alright. And? What does this mean, exactly? Does it mean that a mage can cast a spell every second without pause? That a fighter's attack volume is 100% dependent on how fast he can swing his weapon and nothing else? And here's a bonus question: if my Barbarian is using a Sword and shield, will I have the option to forgo a blocking action with my shield in favor of 2 swinging actions with my sword in the same time frame instead?

 

 

 

2) Classes won't be as rigidly defined as they are in D&D and the infinity engine games.

-in the IE games, you knew your classes. You are a Rogue. And Rogues can't wear heavy armor. They can't use shields. They can't use Greataxes, 2-h swords or Polearms. etc. But in Eternity we're told that all these class-based restrictions are.... removed in favor of an "every class starts out virtually the same and then branches out in their own direction as they advance" system.

 

K.... I can wrap my head around that, I guess. It's a system somewhere in between Skyrim and D&D 3.5. But.... I still want to know some fundamental details. For example, Can I make a Mage who wears Heavy armor, and uses a Giant Axe, and will there be mage skills/talents/perks to allow me to use my Armor and axe more effectively? And if so, then by definition, aren't I playing a fighter at this point instead of a mage?

 

 

I hate to sound like a program record, but mechanics wise, the separating factor between classes still seems to be the way each one uses their soul magic*. For example, the fighter seems to have a number abilities that can increase her stamina and defense, which are probably a combination of training and a particular way of harnessing her soul energy. Mages on the other, use their soul energy for other results (altering things outside of one's body, i.e. fireball, arcane veil or adding power to the body with buffs). 

 

Also, technically, we will all be playing "fighters" as I assume at one point or another we will be "fighitng" things. Avoid getting too caught up on labels. 

[Stun]

And as for the classes... yes, it's different. But I wouldn't say all classes start "virtually the same." They are no longer defined by extraordinarily hard/absolute restrictions now, but they still are more skillful/more sucky at various things. He's specifically mentioned Fighters getting a bonus to Accuracy with melee weapons, which other classes don't get. So, even as a fresh, baby, LvL 1 adventurer, a Fighter is going to function noticeably differently from a different class.

Well, sawyer says this in the OP's link:

I think, just as a general design philosophy, what I like to start out doing is I like to start out with everyone being equal with things, and then start pushing them apart until their differences feel good.

I read this to mean that yes, at fresh-baby-Level 1, you won't be able to distinguish between a Monk and a Mage. The Differences will obviously become apparent as you advance and take the class specific talents and skills.

 

Note: before I get slammed. I'm not at all criticising any part of the system, which IMO seems to be going in a really cool direction. I'm just seeking some clarity. Some specifics.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Stun

[Jon of the Wired]

 

And as for the classes... yes, it's different. But I wouldn't say all classes start "virtually the same." They are no longer defined by extraordinarily hard/absolute restrictions now, but they still are more skillful/more sucky at various things. He's specifically mentioned Fighters getting a bonus to Accuracy with melee weapons, which other classes don't get. So, even as a fresh, baby, LvL 1 adventurer, a Fighter is going to function noticeably differently from a different class.

Well, sawyer says this in the OP's link:

I think, just as a general design philosophy, what I like to start out doing is I like to start out with everyone being equal with things, and then start pushing them apart until their differences feel good.

I read this to mean that yes, at fresh-baby-Level 1, you won't be able to distinguish between a Monk and a Mage. The Differences will obviously become apparent as you advance and take the class specific talents and skills.

 

Note: before I get slammed. I'm not at all criticising any part of the system, which IMO seems to be going in a really cool direction. I'm just seeking some clarity. Some specifics.

 

 

I think you're actually misinterpreting that quote. I believe Josh is talking about the process of developing the classes, not how character progression works while playing the game. He's saying (I think, obviously I can't speak for him) that because the game mechanics are highly unified and they don't have a lot of arbitrary limitations on equipment, etc. that when they start developing classes, they feel very similar to each other, but then they "push them apart" by introducing class specific mechanics and abilities, until the classes feel different enough. Examples of these might be the Fighter's higher limit on how many enemies they can engage, and the Barbarian's ability that gives them a better Stamina / Health damage ratio. Both of these, I believe are in effect at level 1, so even at the start the classes should feel very different.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I'm not sure what people are finding so ambiguous about this system. There are attributes, class abilities, and skills.

 

All characters have the same attributes. These attributes influence abilities and skills in different manners.

All characters have abilities, but these abilities are unique to their class.

All characters have access to the same pool of skills, though some classes may be aligned more closely with certain skills than others.

 

We don't know what all the class abilities are. Just because strength, axes, and chainmail can be useful to a Wizard, does not mean a Wizard played this way is merely a Fighter by another name. What is known, is that while classes will have distinct abilities, deliberate application of attributes and skills will give a spectrum of utility to a character which in other game systems (D&D) would have been regarded as multi-classing.

 

That is the stated intention. Classes are defined by the abilities they have access to. Allocation of attributes and skills determine how those class abilities are expressed. The only thing we don't know, is the degree of latitute. This will likely not be known until the game is released.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Stun]

I'm not sure what people are finding so ambiguous about this system. There are attributes, class abilities, and skills.

 

All characters have the same attributes. These attributes influence abilities and skills in different manners.

All characters have abilities, but these abilities are unique to their class.

All characters have access to the same pool of skills, though some classes may be aligned more closely with certain skills than others.

 

We don't know what all the class abilities are. Just because strength, axes, and chainmail can be useful to a Wizard, does not mean a Wizard played this way is merely a Fighter by another name. What is known, is that while classes will have distinct abilities, deliberate application of attributes and skills will give a spectrum of utility to a character which in other game systems (D&D) would have been regarded as multi-classing.

 

In other words, it's exactly like 3.5ed D&D, except that multi-classing is being replaced by class-divergent talents?

Edited December 18, 2013 by Stun

[Tamerlane]

I wouldn't call it exactly like 3.5. Ability scores are meant to be more universally applicable and consistent in their use, defences are heavily influenced by 4e and Next, and classes gain flat bonuses to skills rather than use favoured/cross-class skills.

[Lephys]

Yeah, defense-type values are one of the biggest numerical distinctions between classes. I think a Wizard starts with something like 25 or 30 Psyche, and 10 Deflection, while a Fighter starts with something like 25-30 Deflection and 10-15 Psyche. From there, you start running into lots of other bonuses and such, and you eventually arrive at just the sheer manner in which the class functions (like a Monk with his Wounds, or a Cipher with his Focus, etc.).

 

It's a pretty big stretch to say they're just all pretty much the same thing, and you only distinguish them with talents and such as you progress...

 

I don't think they're any less different than before (in other rulesets). They're just... differently different.

 

Also, for what it's worth, I'm very much with Jon of the Wired in that I believe you misinterpreted Josh Sawyer's quote. I'm fairly certain he was meaning "When I sit down to figure out how a Fighter and a Wizard are going to work in a given game, I start with them being equal, then look at how to move them apart, rather than just starting with them being very different and just guessing at exactly how they should be separated, and by how much." Something along those lines. He was talking about designing the classes, not the finished result of the classes. Not "start" as in "when the finished classes start/are level 1, they're equal," and not "then they move apart as the player progresses them through the game."

 

In fact, there's a quote somewhere where he was talking about his reasoning for the hard-value bonuses (like how a Rogue gets +3 to Stealth, or how he starts with higher reflexes, but then gains the same amount of reflexes as everyone else as he progresses). He was specifically talking about how, in things like DnD rules, you end up with a Wizard with a base attack bonus of 4 or 5, while a same-level-Warrior ends up with something like 12. Basically, everyone starts almost the same, but one class gains a greater attack bonus more often than another class. So, his philosophy on that seems to be to establish the things that make classes different from the get-go, and maintain those distinctions throughout, with character-progression player decisions allowing for a bit of tweaking along the way. As opposed to "the more you level, the greater the difference between your Wizard and Fighter will be!"

[Volourn]

"the one thing that strikes me as completely odd with this game how they treat men and women completely equaly
that just doesn't fit 16th century.."

 

It's not set in the 16th century. It's set in a FICTIONAL world.

 

 

This myth that low level mages were/are useless in D&D are lies. They are useful even when they run out of spells.  Some people just don't understand how DnD works.

[Lephys]

Yeah, defense-type values are one of the biggest numerical distinctions between classes. I think a Wizard starts with something like 25 or 30 Psyche, and 10 Deflection, while a Fighter starts with something like 25-30 Deflection and 10-15 Psyche.

Sorry, I've got to correct this now, in light of Josh Sawyer's postings in the Attribute Theory thread.

 

Deflection will still vary a lot based on Class, but the other three (Fortitude/Reflexes/Willpower) will be mostly (if not fully) dependent upon Attribute values.

 

Apparently it's been changed, and I hadn't read that before pointing out the old system. Sorry about that.

[Stun]

Also, for what it's worth, I'm very much with Jon of the Wired in that I believe you misinterpreted Josh Sawyer's quote. I'm fairly certain he was meaning "When I sit down to figure out how a Fighter and a Wizard are going to work in a given game, I start with them being equal, then look at how to move them apart, rather than just starting with them being very different and just guessing at exactly how they should be separated, and by how much." Something along those lines. He was talking about designing the classes, not the finished result of the classes.

If that's true, then it's a pointless *nothing* statement. Because it's how every single system ever made starts out in its creator's head.

 

I'll pretend I'm Gary Gygax and do it for AD&D. Watch:

 

Lets create the Fighter and Mage concept from scratch. Lets start them out equal and then conceptually pull them apart until we get a comfortable distinction.

 

Conception Phase: Mage and Fighter concepts are Brought into existance. they are equal in every way. (literally. Level 0 Humans) Now, Lets "pull them apart" and create 2 distinct classes

 

1) I want the fighter to be more hardy than a mage. Result: Fighter starts out with more Hit points (d10 vs. d4).

2) I want the fighter to have to wear armor to protect himself from blows, and I want the mage to have to cast spells to protect himself from Blows. Result: Fighters can wear armor. Mages can get the 1st level Spells Armor, and Shield.

3) I want the fighter to have to use weapons to do damage. I want the mage to have to use spells to do damage. Result: Fighters get weapon proficiencies, and weapon damage bonusses. Mages get Spell slots and offensive spells.

 

There you go. ^^^ AD&D's Fighter and Mage birth process.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Stun

[Silent Winter]

If that's true, than it's a pointless *nothing* statement. One can take what he's saying and apply it to every single system ever made.

 

I'll pretend I'm Gary Gygax and do it for AD&D. Watch:

 

 

But is that how they were designed or is that reverse engineering?

Just because they're different, doesn't mean they started out the same and ended up different.

 

It could well be that they started with a concept for a fighter - strong, high HP, all-weapons,

then started out with a concept of a mage - physically weak, low HP, limited to, er, I dunno, daggers and staves,

and THEN pulled them apart further.

 

The point being - starting with them as conceptually the same and THEN pulling them apart means you don't end up with arbitratry restrictions like 'mages can't wear heavy armour or wield a long-sword at all'.   They're all just people who then have talents above and beyond the base.  They become better at different things but have the same grounding in their race/whatever.

 

I'm just saying that it seems like a reasonable way to go about creating classes.

In the end, the design process is a point of interest, but it's the end result that we'll care about.

[Silent Winter]

If that's true, than it's a pointless *nothing* statement. One can take what he's saying and apply it to every single system ever made.

 

I'll pretend I'm Gary Gygax and do it for AD&D. Watch:

 

 

But is that how they were designed or is that reverse engineering?

Just because they're different, doesn't mean they started out the same and ended up different.

 

It could well be that they started with a concept for a fighter - strong, high HP, all-weapons,

then started out with a concept of a mage - physically weak, low HP, limited to, er, I dunno, daggers and staves,

and THEN pulled them apart further.

 

The point being - starting with them as conceptually the same and THEN pulling them apart means you don't end up with arbitratry restrictions like 'mages can't wear heavy armour or wield a long-sword at all'.   They're all just people who then have talents above and beyond the base.  They become better at different things but have the same grounding in their race/whatever.

 

I'm just saying that it seems like a reasonable way to go about creating classes.

In the end, the design process is a point of interest, but it's the end result that we'll care about.

[Lephys]

If that's true, then it's a pointless *nothing* statement. Because it's how every single system ever made does it.

Not necessarily. You have no idea how people procedurally beget their designs. They could just go "Okay, obviously, a Mage should be squishy and have really powerful spells, and suck with melee weaponry... so, let's just start him with 40 health instead of 120, and 2 attack power instead of 7." There's a big difference between starting them both at 80 health, then adjusting accordingly, and just starting your prototype for each class with different things, then trying to balance them however you want from there. Both are completely possible. If you think that starting them all equal is the only reasonable way of doing it, then be thankful Josh Sawyer is reasonable, as opposed to unreasonable.

 

Besides, he wasn't saying "Hey guys, I just want to stress how different and awesome I am compared to everyone else when it comes to designing things." He was just pointing out how he arrives at his design ideas.

 

Also, you didn't "pull them apart" in your example. You initialized all their values and attributes at completely different amounts. You didn't start with Wizards doing the same thing as Fighters, then arrive at spells-over-weapons somehow. You just started with them doing completely different things. Besides, Wizards can still use weapons. They just don't use them the same way as Fighters. Which is kind of the point. Exactly how to make them different, as opposed to just over-arching ways to make them different (i.e. "Wizards will cast spells and Fighters won't! LOLZ!").

[Stun]

But is that how they were designed or is that reverse engineering?

Just because they're different, doesn't mean they started out the same and ended up different.

 

It could well be that they started with a concept for a fighter - strong, high HP, all-weapons,

then started out with a concept of a mage - physically weak, low HP, limited to, er, I dunno, daggers and staves,

and THEN pulled them apart further.

True.

 

I'm pretty sure that classes in D&D (specifically) did not even start from "scratch". But rather, they began from old literature/Mythology and D&D creators simply took the accepted stereotypes (mages are scrawny, frail brainiacs with staves; Fighters are tough warriors) then plugged them in to a D20 system.

 

But If we're going to get that pedantic, then lets not give Josh Sawyer more credit than he deserves. He's not starting from scratch either. I'm pretty sure the classes in Eternity drew fairly heavily, at conception, from what has already been created in other systems. More to the point. I find it really *really* hard to believe that he sat down and began creating Barbarians and Wizards as "equals" then methodically worked from there to make them distinct.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Stun

[Karkarov]

"the one thing that strikes me as completely odd with this game how they treat men and women completely equaly

that just doesn't fit 16th century.."

 

It's not set in the 16th century. It's set in a FICTIONAL world.

Just to throw this out there but this is the second time that quote has been taken out of context.  The guy was talking about his thoughts on the Conquistador games story, it has nothing to do with Eternity.

[Lephys]

Just to throw this out there but this is the second time that quote has been taken out of context.  The guy was talking about his thoughts on the Conquistador games story, it has nothing to do with Eternity.

Oh. Oops... *ashamed face with droopy ears*

[Abel]

 

If that's true, than it's a pointless *nothing* statement. One can take what he's saying and apply it to every single system ever made.

 

I'll pretend I'm Gary Gygax and do it for AD&D. Watch:

 

 

But is that how they were designed or is that reverse engineering?

Just because they're different, doesn't mean they started out the same and ended up different.

 

 

I guess the true point of Stun was more like "well, it's a quote, this guy said something, but it's kind of political manners because we don't learn much with it".

 

Interesting to see how he proceed, but it's true that it's hard to figure out anything with just that. I'm glad i'm not the only to be lost here.

 

Finally my true point was about the spell uses. It's not clear how wizards manage them in comparison with priests... (ie spells/day, spells/grimoire, spell levels, x level spell/grimoire/wizard level, and so on...). J.Sawyer said wizards have much more spells, but is it about the number of spells in the game or the number of spells they can cast before needing to rest?

 

But no complain here. We know MUCH more about Eternity than we would if there was a publisher involved.

[Lephys]

^ Agreed that it's hard to actually just go somewhere and read all the currently-known stuff about a given system, because it's all broken up in bits and pieces, here and there, at different times and such for now. I just think it's pointless to judge that statement as if it was meant as anything more than just "for what it's worth" information. In interviews like that, some people are interested in getting into the mind of the person being interviewed. So, he tossed that little tidbit out there, just for what it was worth. I don't at all think it was meant to be some crazy, epiphany-sparking revelation into the heart of PoE's design.

 

Anywho, as for Wizard spells, I'm fairly certain he meant "spells you get access to, in total." As in (and the is PURELY an example):

 

A Priest might get 4 spells at Level 1 (out of all the potential Priest spells). Whereas, a Lvl 1 Wizard might have access to 3 different grimoires, each holding 5 spells. So, that's 15 different spells he COULD cast, depending on the circumstances (with his spells-per-rest "ammo"). So, Wizard: 15. Priest: 4. BUT, the Wizard can only cast those 5 (from a given grimoire) at one time. He can't choose from any spells outside that grimoire, without switching to another grimoire.

 

So then, later on, that Priest might be Level 5, and be up to 20 spells. He can now cast ANY of those 20 spells at any given point in time. But, the LvL 5 Wizard will still be limited to his currently-equipped grimoire (which, at that point, might contain 10 spells instead of 5). And, of course, maybe he can potentially get 5 or 6 different grimoires at that point (not that he can necessarily equip that many... probably not), giving him access to 40 or 50 or so spells (some of the spells would probably be redundant between grimoires -- as in, Grimoire A has Fireball, plus 9 other spells, and Grimoire B has Fireball, plus 9 DIFFERENT spells).

 

So, basically, Wizards -- between all their different grimoires -- CAN cast from a much larger total pool of spells, but can only cast from the limited set specifically in their equipped grimoire, at any given moment. While Priests and such get a smaller total pool of spells from which to be able to cast at a given level, but have immediate access to that whole pool, instead of being limited to a grimoire's worth of immediately-ready-to-cast spells.

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

As far as the spell "ammo" -- the number of spells they can cast per rest/per encounter -- I don't really know how that differs. I would guess that it's going to be about the same for Wizards and non-Wizard casters, because the spell-access differences already set them apart. However, I don't really know.

[Abel]

Yes it makes sense, thanks. But to understand well all the stuff, i guess we have to be patient.

 

On a very personal note, i love priests in BGate. I hope the PE version, if not the same, will be as interesting as the BG version with bunch of "usefull but not so much" spells that allow you many differents way to approach the priest's gameplay. (well, i want 3 possible priests companions too, but i keep this for my own sweet dreams :D)

[neo6874]

 

As far as the spell "ammo" -- the number of spells they can cast per rest/per encounter -- I don't really know how that differs. I would guess that it's going to be about the same for Wizards and non-Wizard casters, because the spell-access differences already set them apart. However, I don't really know.

 

 

Just going out on a limb with it (since we don't knwo anything official). I'm dipping into D&D rules a bit to flesh things out

 

We've got our 10th level wizard and Cleric.

 

WIZ has fireball (L3), magic missile (L1), Shield (Arcane Veil?) (L1), Stoneskin (L4), Teleport (L5) and 5 other things in the grimoire.  He has 20 total slots, 15 "per encounter" and 5 "per rest".  The "Per Rest" spells are his "L4 and L5" spells (because they're his most powerful).  He has access to a total of 70 spells, at least twenty of which may not be "with him" (i.e. in addition to the equipped one, he's carrying 4 grimoires in his backpack, there's no guarantee that he's not overlapping some spells between them).

 

 

CLR has all the typical spells of a cleric (healing, sanctuary, whatever), totalling 45 spells overall.  He also has 20 slots, but 18 of which are 'per encounter'. (IDK ... just making this up...).  Alternatively, his slots work more like a D&D cleric - he has "20 slots" that he can fill with whatever, but can ALWAYS burn any spell he wants and turn it into a healing spell.

Edited December 20, 2013 by neo6874

[Monte Carlo]

For me the interesting thing will be how utility works across classes. Will I have to have a wizard or a rogue?

[Gfted1]

For me the interesting thing will be how utility works across classes. Will I have to have a wizard or a rogue?

 

From what I understand, you don't have to have any particular class as the game can be soloed. If you want to do wizardy or roguey things the best, then yes you will need one, but otherwise you can get by without either by ignoring their utilities or building some into whatever class you chose.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

For me the interesting thing will be how utility works across classes. Will I have to have a wizard or a rogue?

 

I'm more interested whether there will be a point in bringing wizards with me at all. I mean, their whole point is to be able to do everything, but worse that classes specialized to do that specific thing, and only that. Druids and barbarians will be better at AoE, rangers and rogues will be better at single-target damage, monks and fighters will be better at tanking (although, just a hunch: anything will be better at tanking if given the same amount of tanking-oriented talents), paladins and priests will be better at buffing. (And, to add insult to injury, chanters will probably be better at being versatile. Still hasn't really figured out the point of ciphers.) Since I can have up to 5 companions, I don't really see the need to keep one that can do the stuff of the other classes, only worse - I can have a class for every role, and still have 2 slots free (one, if I count on needing two tanks).

 

On the other hand, this versatility (and a probable class bonus to lore skills) may make the wizard ideal for being my first character, since that will be the only time where I don't know where I'll run into which companions, so flexibility could be useful. (After creating a borderline unplayable bard in NWN, I've decided I'll never ever experiment with singsong-y classes again.)

Edited December 20, 2013 by aluminiumtrioxid