Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers

[Greensleeve]

Honestly, I have great faith in this team. I think that even if all my fears about this game comes true (all right, maybe not all of them) it'll still be a good game. Worthy of what I backed and more. But I too am worrying about class inflexibility. I want to be able to vary my classes more than they seem to permit right now. 

[Infinitron]

Incoming updates:

Chanters - the Silent Killers

Paladins - the Meticulous Tinkerers

Monks - the Careless Scoundrels

 

We already had Kickstarter updates about Paladins and Monks, actually. 56 and 52.

[IndiraLightfoot]

You got me! Heh, I was just trying to get the picture of slightly unorthodox classes across. In itself, it doesn't mean it's bad, but sometimes it goes against the grain too much, at least for me to getting jiggy with it. Now, that's a word you don't get to use very often. Unless you're a Smith, then you Will.

Edited January 29, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[ReyVagabond]

This made me want to be a Rogue!

[Endrosz]

Sneak Attack - Sneak Attack applies bonus damage to the rogue's ranged and melee weapon attacks when the target has any of the following statuses: Blinded, Flanked, Hobbled, Paralyzed, Petrified, Prone, Stuck, Stunned, or Weakened. It also applies to any target the rogue strikes with a weapon within the first 2 seconds of combat starting.

 

 

Does Sneak Attack bonus damage apply if the attack itself applies a condition? For example, if I hit an untouched target with Crippling Strike, inflicting it with the Hobbled condition, will the bonus apply?

 

Or in more technical terms: During damage resolution, Is the "apply condition" phase before or after the "sneak attack bonus" phase? In most games, the answer is yes. I'm okay with both possible answers, I'm just curious.

 

(The same question stands for Deathblows, which looks like a passive ability to me.)

Edited January 29, 2014 by Endrosz

[morhilane]

Nice update, it makes the Ranger looks very tempting.

 

 

Although, I really want to know more about the chanters and the druids, but they are not in the same "class" group.

[The RPGenius]

Everything sounds nifty.  I just hope that Pillars of Eternity will be able to properly follow through with the Ranger, without falling into the nonsense trap that practically every other RPG does--nerfed bows and crossbows.  In real life, bows and especially crossbows were insanely deadly, far more powerful and penetrating than any weaponry known to man until modern firearms.  Additionally, a skilled longbow archer in the middle ages could fire several rounds a minute, each one easily powerful enough to pierce the heaviest plate mail.  Crossbows were even more powerful (though not as quick to fire).  Most RPGs I've played completely ignore the reality of bows and crossbows and relegate them to, at best, slow mid-damage weaponry, or, all too often, the very slow, low-powered throw-away weapons of character classes like mages who don't rely on physical attacks, when the fact of the matter is that bows and crossbows should be far more damaging than the majority of melee weapons, including the overused RPG favorite, the sword.  I'm really hoping we'll see a dose of rare reality in this game with crossbows having extremely high power, and bows being high-powered and reasonably fast to use.

[Gumbercules]

It might be nice to have a Talent that allows rangers to trade the animal companion for increased durability and damage output, and another one that makes them better in close combat. Then again, taking a closer look at the rogue's abilities, it could be that if you want a ranged heavy-hitter without a pet, the best way to do that is to just give your rogue a bow or gun.

 

It may be too early for this yet, but I think a good idea for a future update would be to take two player character ideas, one that's very traditional and one that's unusual, and go through all or most of the character-building process for each idea. So you would start with the general feeling that you want that PC to evoke in and out of combat, pick which class is the best fit, then show how Attributes, Abilities, Equipment, Talents, and Skills help develop that idea. The problem with these types of updates at the moment, as interesting as they are, is that the various pieces still feel very isolated and it's hard to tell if some character ideas are unfeasible or if they just have to be achieved a different way.

[Groovedirk]

First time poster! I don't mind the rogue so much. It reminds me a bit of characters like the Grey Mouser, who while a "rogue" (and thief!) was also a hell of a fighter. Just depends on how you think of "heavy hitters" I guess.  The ranger I have a problem with. I love the idea of a pet...in fact I think ALL classes should be able to get one, even without super special abilities, but I don't think the ranger should be REQUIRED to have one. And I want a ranger like Aragorn, ideally kickin' ass with two swords. That kind of character doesn't seem possible....If I can get a dual wielding fighter with lots of outdoorsman/survival/tracking skills that will suffice, even if I don't get to choose his class as "Ranger". But if I can't make that character one way or the other. I'm gonna be mad disappointed.

 

On a slightly different point, does ANYONE from Obsidian ever reply to these messages? Or is this just some sort of backer echo chamber?

[LadyCrimson]

On a slightly different point, does ANYONE from Obsidian ever reply to these messages? Or is this just some sort of backer echo chamber?

They reply quite often (well, at least some of them), at least periodically, but not always to every single post or every day.

 

You can always look up/search an individual Dev. forum posting history, if you're so inclined. Sawyer is probably the most active.

[Brasidas]

While I am more and more excited by the class mechanics, I am continually surprised by the quality of the art. That's a beautiful shot of the ruins. I can't wait to see areas populated by creatures and characters!

[J.E. Sawyer]

First time poster! I don't mind the rogue so much. It reminds me a bit of characters like the Grey Mouser, who while a "rogue" (and thief!) was also a hell of a fighter. Just depends on how you think of "heavy hitters" I guess.  The ranger I have a problem with. I love the idea of a pet...in fact I think ALL classes should be able to get one, even without super special abilities, but I don't think the ranger should be REQUIRED to have one. And I want a ranger like Aragorn, ideally kickin' ass with two swords. That kind of character doesn't seem possible....If I can get a dual wielding fighter with lots of outdoorsman/survival/tracking skills that will suffice, even if I don't get to choose his class as "Ranger". But if I can't make that character one way or the other. I'm gonna be mad disappointed.

 

On a slightly different point, does ANYONE from Obsidian ever reply to these messages? Or is this just some sort of backer echo chamber?

 

You can make either a dual-wielding fighter or a dual-wielding rogue who emphasizes Survival.  Just because rangers get an automatic bonus in Survival doesn't mean other classes have trouble putting points in it.

 

I usually reply to questions in the update thread on the day they are posted, but I was out sick yesterday and often have weird problems logging in from home.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Everything sounds nifty.  I just hope that Pillars of Eternity will be able to properly follow through with the Ranger, without falling into the nonsense trap that practically every other RPG does--nerfed bows and crossbows.  In real life, bows and especially crossbows were insanely deadly, far more powerful and penetrating than any weaponry known to man until modern firearms.

 

We're not making a historical simulator, but bows are reasonably powerful and crossbows are quite powerful (though much slower).  Over a given span of time, we are going to tip bows lower than equivalent rate of attack melee weapons because bows require little to no movement on the part of the wielder.  For all the time that melee combatants spend moving, they are effectively doing 0 damage per second.  I'd like to avoid "no brainer" choices in the system.

 

For bows, we have two types: hunting bows and war bows.  For crossbows, we have two types: crossbows and arbalests.  Hunting bows fire faster and do less damage than war bows.  War bows fire faster and do less damage than crossbows.  Crossbows fire faster (well, reload faster) and do less damage than arbalests.

[J.E. Sawyer]

It might be nice to have a Talent that allows rangers to trade the animal companion for increased durability and damage output, and another one that makes them better in close combat. Then again, taking a closer look at the rogue's abilities, it could be that if you want a ranged heavy-hitter without a pet, the best way to do that is to just give your rogue a bow or gun.

 

Yeah, this is the intent.

[coffeetable]

On a slightly different point, does ANYONE from Obsidian ever reply to these messages? Or is this just some sort of backer echo chamber?

They post a lott. Here's a dev tracker courtesy of someone over on SA whose name I forget. Best thing to do is subscribe to the RSS feed.

 

http://pedevtracker.azurewebsites.net/

[crimeinall]

NIce update! pets for Ranger is great, pets being able to scout ahead without being noticed would be nice.I was going to say lets read about the wizard\druid pair but i'd like to hear about fighter classes first. It'd be cool to have a class like a werewolf, not a shapeshifting druid type thing but an actual werewolf, strictly a melee class, overwhelming brutal, berserker kind of thing. Always liked the HULK, would be cool to have one of them in the game, having to sacrifice the control over chacarter in favor of outrageous strenght boost

[Crowmeat]

 Also I would change the ability about AOE's, unless I read it wrong it sounds like they get a bonus if "both" of them are in an aoe.  However the class design clearly implies your ranger is at ... range, and the pet is in melee.  So how often is that going to happen?  Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Both the ranger and the pet take damage separately, but go into the same pool of health.  That ability is there so that one fireball is less likely to effectively do double-damage to the "ranger", not something you should actively be trying to utilize.  At least, that's how I read it.   

 

edit:  

 

And I want a ranger like Aragorn, ideally kickin' ass with two swords.

Aragorn, that noted dual-wielder.  (Play a rogue, put points into Survival or Outdoorsman or whatever its called.  There you go, sneaky melee asskicking with foresty skills.)  Edited January 29, 2014 by Crowmeat

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

It might be nice to have a Talent that allows rangers to trade the animal companion for increased durability and damage output, and another one that makes them better in close combat. Then again, taking a closer look at the rogue's abilities, it could be that if you want a ranged heavy-hitter without a pet, the best way to do that is to just give your rogue a bow or gun.

 

Yeah, this is the intent.

 

Ah, I see! Thanks for letting us know, Josh!

Well, I may end up picking a rogue for my first playthrough then. Interesting...

[J.E. Sawyer]

Also what happened to Paladins (and monks for that matter)?  What category do they fall in?  With their buffs I would figure they are front line or "band leaders".

 

Paladins and monks have already been covered in their own updates.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63968-update-56-paladins-and-wild-orlans/

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63765-update-52-monk/

 

Paladins are classified with the leaders/support characters and monks with the front line.

[LadyCrimson]

In terms of terminology I tend to think of Rogues or other potentially high damage, largely single-attack, moderately but not heavily armored classes as shock troops or strikers.

 

I also find it curious that people think terms like "tank" comes from WoW. I've heard such terms bandied about long before WoW.

[D2S]

Leaders of the Band next!

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

I also find it curious that people think terms like "tank" comes from WoW. I've heard such terms bandied about long before WoW.

Indeed. I haven't played WoW, but I'm pretty sure the game appeared around 2004, all the while we'd been playing NWN then for like two years and used that term all the time. I think it was widely spread in PnP-circles during the 90s, and probably much earlier. I can't recall. Back in the 70s, we called them "tin cans", "tin men" or "plates".

Edited January 29, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Failion]

Personally I think dual wielding is very boring how its done in crpgs inspired by pnp rpg games. Added dice rolles=more damage. I rather have melee abilities cause the most damage. So a paladin can essentially dish out as much damage as a dual wielder if he builds glass cannon, huge mana pool and high strength. Less number game emphasis more ability tactics emphasize. So the game feels less like a hack and slash. Mainly DnD suffers from this because fighters types have like zero gameplay besides feats like knockdown.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Failion

[Monte Carlo]

Personally I think dual wielding is very boring how its done in crpgs inspired by pnp rpg games. Added dice rolles=more damage. I rather have melee abilities cause the most damage. So a paladin can essentially dish out as much damage as a dual wielder if he builds glass cannon, huge mana pool and high strength. Less number game emphasis more ability tactics emphasize. So the game feels less like a hack and slash. Mainly DnD suffers from this because fighters types have like zero gameplay besides feats like knockdown.

 

Excuse me while I bail out of my hysterical lolocopter.

 

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/3.5e_Fighter_Feats

 

There's a couple of hundred there with synergies, skills and PrC specific powaz.

 

Add in multi-classing (for example a hasted, stone-skinned magic-user / barbarian using the Bullrush feat while wielding his weapon focussed dual-wield daggers) and you've got a world of character diversity.

 

Not 'Crowd control' 'DPS' 'Leader' or any of this MMO dreck.

[Monte Carlo]

Then...

 

 

Now...

 

 

* sigh *