Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers

[FlintlockJazz]

 

there is however a logical reason behind prebuffing in certain situations. you peek through the lock, you see the enemies and knowing the enemy is in there, you cast buffs before opening the door. in other situations however is simply meta gaming. you touch a gravestone with a jewel that reveals where an ancient sword is buried, it is the right one, the sword appears and so do the ghosts of all evil people slain by that sword. you have no way of knowing that they will appear until they do, however they are too strong for you to beat and you have no time to buff. next time you buff before touching the stone, even if your characters are not supposed to know what will happen when they touch the stone

 

Ideally the game would know when your characters would know that they are entering a combat situation and allow them to pre-buff in those situations but not allow them in other cases but I'm not sure on the feasibility of such a thing, nor on the potential problems it could cause.

[rjshae]

As for buffing, we're not eliminating buffing, but we are eliminating pre-combat spell buffing.

 

Josh goes on and mentions when combat starts that character either buffs your party or does some other thing like cast a spell at the enemy. This is what usually happens in pnp. You don't pre-buff your characters before you open the door to a room full of enemies.

 

Horse feathers. You've never had your rogue listen to a door before going in? Or peep through the lock hole? Wouldn't you try to find out what you're up against then prep yourself accordingly?

[magicwallis]

Wait...did you say 'Horse feathers'? *Scuttles away to store in box of Wonderfully Absurd Exclamations*

[KaeseEs]

 

As for buffing, we're not eliminating buffing, but we are eliminating pre-combat spell buffing.

 

Josh goes on and mentions when combat starts that character either buffs your party or does some other thing like cast a spell at the enemy. This is what usually happens in pnp. You don't pre-buff your characters before you open the door to a room full of enemies.

 

Horse feathers. You've never had your rogue listen to a door before going in? Or peep through the lock hole? Wouldn't you try to find out what you're up against then prep yourself accordingly?

 

Yeah, then the DM rolls two dice, pretends to look at a table and announces your rogue didn't see/hear **** .  Same thing that happens if you try to beat down a door or pick the lock when you don't have the key - it turns out the wood door has a steel core or a non-tumbler lock or some other bullpoppy. 

 

(Aside: obviously with a quality group this sort of railroading happens much less frequently.  Furthermore it ought to be a strength of a good crpg - that the number of times that your skill check is guaranteed to fail should be severely limited, given that your "session" and its quests were planned over a period of months/years rather than hours/days and thus the "DM" has had the opportunity to design in numerous satisfying ways to get through the quest).

[Ffordesoon]

Posted this in the last update thread because I was very very tired, and then realized that I meant to post it here.

 

In re the "But multiclassing!" argument:

 

If you have to build a character out of multiple classes to get the build you want in the IE games (muscle wizard, for example), doesn't that indicate that the classes in the IE games are overly rigid?

[Yonjuro]

.....

In re the "But multiclassing!" argument:

 

If you have to build a character out of multiple classes to get the build you want in the IE games (muscle wizard, for example), doesn't that indicate that the classes in the IE games are overly rigid?

 

I suppose they would be if you couldn't dual or multi-class. This seems to me to be a case where you have to look at the game mechanics as a whole. The IE games gave you flexibility with one mechanism, PoE will use a different one. If you changed that single element of either system, i.e., add multiclass to PoE or remove it from the IE games, things would break.

[Giantevilhead]

Update by Josh Sawyer, Project Director

 

 

Resident heavy-hitting rogue, Edér.

 

 

So Ser Jorah Mormont finally came to his senses and realized that he wasn't a knight anymore. Good for him.

[teknoman2]

 

 

there is however a logical reason behind prebuffing in certain situations. you peek through the lock, you see the enemies and knowing the enemy is in there, you cast buffs before opening the door. in other situations however is simply meta gaming. you touch a gravestone with a jewel that reveals where an ancient sword is buried, it is the right one, the sword appears and so do the ghosts of all evil people slain by that sword. you have no way of knowing that they will appear until they do, however they are too strong for you to beat and you have no time to buff. next time you buff before touching the stone, even if your characters are not supposed to know what will happen when they touch the stone

 

Ideally the game would know when your characters would know that they are entering a combat situation and allow them to pre-buff in those situations but not allow them in other cases but I'm not sure on the feasibility of such a thing, nor on the potential problems it could cause.

 

a simple way to do it, is to allow buffing when enemies are within the line of sight of a party member.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

As for buffing, we're not eliminating buffing, but we are eliminating pre-combat spell buffing.

 

Josh goes on and mentions when combat starts that character either buffs your party or does some other thing like cast a spell at the enemy. This is what usually happens in pnp. You don't pre-buff your characters before you open the door to a room full of enemies.

 

Horse feathers. You've never had your rogue listen to a door before going in? Or peep through the lock hole? Wouldn't you try to find out what you're up against then prep yourself accordingly?

 

 

Some of my experiences with listening at the door with no key holes is the DM says you hear muffled voices. That's pretty much it. Hearing voices doesn't tell you anything other than there are people in the next room. In a pnp game, how would you pre-buff your party with spells before an encounter with the enemies still in the next room? Not knowing what you're going to encounter. I'm not talking about what if's. Actual pnp game experience where your group has done this. In my experience, it's always been buffing at the start of the encounter when players have had time to digest what the party is up against.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Fingorn]

So... ...where can I vote on which of the three class pairs I'd like to see covered next?

 

I'd very much like to learn more about "The Mob Rulers (wizards and druids)" next; but there are no buttons at the end of the update which would allow me or others to voice this opinion effectively...

Edited January 31, 2014 by Fingorn

[ArtB]

So... ...where can I vote on which of the three class pairs I'd like to see covered next?

 

 

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65027-which-class-do-you-want-to-see-covered-in-the-next-update/ 

 

Right here!

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Voting

[Ffordesoon]

 

 

.....

In re the "But multiclassing!" argument:

 

If you have to build a character out of multiple classes to get the build you want in the IE games (muscle wizard, for example), doesn't that indicate that the classes in the IE games are overly rigid?

I suppose they would be if you couldn't dual or multi-class. This seems to me to be a case where you have to look at the game mechanics as a whole. The IE games gave you flexibility with one mechanism, PoE will use a different one. If you changed that single element of either system, i.e., add multiclass to PoE or remove it from the IE games, things would break.

That's exactly what I'm saying, though. We have two mechanisms that satisfy the same player desire. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that PoE's method doesn't make you choose between roleplaying and survival. I'm aware there are builds in the IE games and all editions of D&D that toe that line successfully, but they practically require metagaming knowledge, and are often builds which support a highly specific character concept that may or may not line up with your own.

 

Also, because they're dependent on taking levels and skills in different classes, you have to plan out your character's leveling well in advance if you want to achieve an optimal build, and you can't deviate from that path even if you discover you would like to do so.

 

Now, in tabletop, with a good DM, that fundamental lack of systemic dynamism ceases to exist, because the DM can tweak the story of a campaign to allow you to feel as if you're building your character organically. You can slough off your class like a summer job if you want, and the DM can account for it in the story being told, or the DM can allow you to roleplay a character who happens to be of a certain class despite their personality not fitting the archetype, or what-the-eff-ever. The rules are a starting point, not the game itself.

 

In a cRPG, the rules are the game. Your "DM" isn't in the room with you, adjusting to your desires on the fly. He or she has to anticipate and adjust to the desires of as many players as possible without ever coming into contact with said players. In that case, why not attempt to build the dynamism of a tabletop session into the system itself?

 

That's what Obsidian has done/is doing here, as far as I can tell.

[Lephys]

Lephys, why does every post you make involve some sort of meta-analysis of why people don't understand what you're saying? Is it because the way you post means people don't understand what you're saying?

Why is actually giving a crap about mutual understanding some kind of shunnable trait in a person? That's the better question.

 

You can stir flour and sugar all day long, but without milk and eggs, it's never going to become cake. Comprehension is the binding agent for the cake batter of discussion.

 

The even better question is: Why is it fine for certain people to speculate, but wrong for someone else to speculate differently? And the followup, why is criticism of my speculation totally fine, but my defense and/or clarification of my own speculation is bad and dumb?

 

TL;DR... if you don't want to hear me explain something, don't prompt responses from me. And if you don't want analysis on how you've misunderstood me, don't ask how you've misunderstood me.

 

It's not as if I'm making things up to which to respond.

[Gwydiian]

Thanks for the update guys!  I always look forward to seeing those emails in my inbox!

 

I really love the direction this game is taking for the gameplay mechanics, sticking to what makes isometric RPGs awesome, but narrowing down the core skills that worked and cutting some of the fluff that didn't.  The rogue, ranger, and cipher are no exception.  I can't wait to get my hands on the game!

 

P.S. BARD CLASS?!!!! 

 

That is all.

[Lephys]

In re the "But multiclassing!" argument:

 

If you have to build a character out of multiple classes to get the build you want in the IE games (muscle wizard, for example), doesn't that indicate that the classes in the IE games are overly rigid?

To an extent, I'd say. It's all degrees, not just yes or no. I think there are a handful of things that are blatantly overly restrictive (like how a game that can represent someone with 3 Intelligence still allows Intelligence checks and such, but somehow DIVINELY prevents a Wizard's hand from clutching the hilt of a given weapon). But, also, there are just multiple ways of doing it. Allowing multi-classing is one way of achieving build variation, while simply implementing individual classes with a lot less restriction is another (kind of the one PoE's going for, it would seem).

 

I don't think one approach is really any wronger than the other. It's all in how you implement it, and what your goal is in the design. If you have a class system at all, you obviously want some sort of distinction/restriction between characters. So, whichever system you use, the more restriction you do away with, the less point there is in even having a class system in the first place. But then, there's obviously ways to put too much restriction in. So, it's a happy medium, and each method has its own factors to deal with to get it right.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Also, I wanted to add to my post above. If you're not sure what enemies are in the next room and you pre-buff your party before the encounter. When you charge into the room, it might turn out to be a trash fight and the real boss is in the following room. By that time, you've wasted quite a few spells pre-buffing on a trash fight that you didn't know. And when it comes to the boss fight, you're severely handicapped. This is one reason why you don't pre-buff. I've never seen pre-buffing with spells in D&D pnp in different versions that I've played. Preparing for a fight with melee or ranged weapon drawn is one thing. Pre-buffing characters with spells? No, never seen it.

[Lephys]

^ Indeed. And there's no reason you should be absolutely sure of a whole enemy group's makeup in anywhere close to every single situation. Good scouting could easily lead to always at least having some idea of what you're up against, but there's no reason you should just easily big-brother everything, then prep accordingly before every fight.

 

Besides, you end up with tools in the enemy's hands, like Mass Dispel or something, and *poof*. The player's time is wasted by the game's own design. The only things that are already "balanced" are circumstantial factors, because the require reaction, on both your part and your opponent's. Buffs should really be a lot more about when and how you use them, than just "+bonus! +bonus! +bonus!" on people's passive capabilities.

 

It helps to have some minor drawbacks, too, sometimes. Maybe Stoneskin, for example, actually slows the target's movement speed. Thus, you wouldn't want to just slap that on people all the time, because it's not just a free bonus to armor rating.

[Clean&Clear]

 

Except for IWD2, that argument doesn't hold water.  The individual classes themselves were incredibly rigid.

I guess IWD2 doesn't count as an IE game then. LOL And you're wrong anyway. Rangers could wield and thrive with melee weapons in all the IE games. And mages had spells like phantom blade, black blade of Disaster etc. to get their sword-wielding fix. not to mention spells they could use in tandem with the above to make them good in melee (tensors transformation, haste, improved haste, stoneskin, spirit armor etc.)

 

But really, dismissing the multi-classing/dual-classing argument as something that "doesn't count" or "doesn't hold water", will not make it go away. The ability to dual or multi-class IS there to give the player near unlimited build choice options within the class system, yes. The fact that there are cleric and mage spells specifically designed to enhance specific multiclass combinations is just further proof.

 

If you want to argue that the flexibility provided by multiclassing is better than that provided by the more inclusive classes of PoE, go right ahead.  But it's a different subject.

The hell it is. If I'm building a melee mage in POE, will the build be flexible enough to hold its own in melee with a warrior? Because you could do that in the IE games. Because everything was less rigid.

 

I can't agree with you Stun.

 

I can't speak about IWD2, cause I haven't played it, but in other IE games with 2nd edition DnD, the classes were totally rigid. For example, when you made a warrior, what could you do with the character? You chose him some weapon profinciencies, defining the weapons he will be using during the game, and that's pretty all. The same with mages. You got defined number of spell slots per level and that's it. The flexibility, as you said, was provided by dual and multi classing.

 

But then, where is the real flexibilty of these classes after you create them? If you choose for example fighter/mage, you get weapon proficiencies of a fighter and spell slots of a mage, and that's it. Nothing more. You can't make your lvl 10 fighter/mage make any different from another lvl 10 fighter/mage, apart from using different weapons and spells (not counting atribute differencies because it's quite a different topic and I'd say we can both agree that PoE will provide greater variability here with each attribute providing at least something). You don't get any choices along the level progression of your character.

 

So in general, if you count every multiclassing possibility as a separate class, you get a lot of classes to choose from, which are on the other hand totally rigid, cause you dont make any choices as the character levels up, it's all set from the beginning. The only choice is to dual class, which is quite similar to multi classing from a chosen level.

 

I'm curious where you see the non-rigidity of this system.

 

In Pillars of Eternity, they're aiming for this: (Josh Sawyer, PC World interview)

 

There are set classes, and then we also allow...our talent system will probably be the last thing that we devise because it’s for filling in the gaps and extending the classes. Much like 4th edition D&D we want to allow people to take talents that can give a character the flavor of another class so they feel like they have those hybrid or blend forms.

 

(recent update)

 

In addition to the abilities listed here, ciphers, rogues, and rangers can gain access to additional class-specific abilities as well as Talents. Some Talents can be taken by any character, but many are class-oriented and can be used to distinguish or emphasize one character from another. One cipher's Talents may emphasize his or her physical attacks while another's makes his or her Focus use more efficient. One rogue may maximize his or her advantage against a specific type of affliction; another may improve the frequency with which his or her offensive abilities can be used. And while rangers can always benefit from improving their marksmanship and special attacks, investing in the durability and abilities of their animal companions can safeguard the ranger against disaster.

 

(me)

So, talents will give the possibility to distinguish charcters of the same class by choosing different talents and also substitute multi classing by providing every class a chance to gain some abilities and skills of other classes. This way, if you want fighter/mage, you can choose fighter in the beginning and give him as much magic talents as you can along the way, or take mage and give him fighting abilities. Maybe you won't be able to create a 50/50 fighter/mage, but as long as you can have let's say 65/35 fighter/mage and vice versa, it's totally okay with. Maybe the base class of the character will always dominate a bit, but the fact that you influence the progress of your character will, in my oppinion, make for at least same amount of possibilities as in IE games, but probably more.

Btw, no race restrictions on classes will give a bunch of new possibilities as well.

 

And, I think nobody said rangers can't wield melee weapons, but they probably won't be so good with them in direct combat as a fighter would, which is the same as in IE games cause of restricted number of allowed points in proficiencies.

 

Sorry for the lenght of the post and for repeating facts you definitely know, but I didn't want to be misunderstood. And excuse grammar mistakes, not a native speaker.

[Ffordesoon]

@Lephys:

 

That's all true. Wouldn't dispute it. All I'm saying is that I feel PoE's system is the better one for a cRPG of this type, because the systems are not at odds with the overall intent of the design.

 

By the way, when you compare the two systems, there's an intriguing echo of world history that seems vaguely intentional on Sawyer's part. D&D's main campaign settings have always been fantastical versions of medieval Europe, more or less. In medieval Europe, your social class was, to a very large extent, who you were. You might have been able to rise above it with a large amount of toil, but you could never escape it. 1E and 2E, at least, reflect this idea, and fragments of it are still hard-coded into D&D's DNA even today.

 

PoE's campaign setting, by contrast, is something of a fantastical version of colonial America. It's a melting pot, where folks of many cultures and races and creeds have come to start a new life. Prestige is accrued by actions and words, not bestowed by divine right. Is it any wonder that a class is basically the thing you do to make a living, rather than something which defines who you are as a person?

[Silent Winter]

It was mentioned by motorizer in the "quickfire thoughts" thread but I'll repeat it here:

If people could name their class as they like, then perhaps some of the arguments of "that's not a rogue/ranger/etc" would fall away.

The game would still track my class as 'Rogue' for the purpose of levelling and combat, but my character could refer to himself in-game as "Hi, I'm <CHARNAME>, a <PCCLASS> from out of town." or something.

I'm not sure if there are any class-specific quests/content in PoE so I don't know if this would cause in-game confusion (e.g. I call my rogue a 'ranger' but then get told they'll only give the quest to a ranger so I can't help).

This could, of course, be used to comic effect.  If someone wants to do that with their game, then so be it.

Edited February 1, 2014 by Silent Winter

[ZornWO]

It was mentioned by motorizer in the "quickfire thoughts" thread but I'll repeat it here:

If people could name their class as they like, then perhaps some of the arguments of "that's not a rogue/ranger/etc" would fall away.

The game would still track my class as 'Rogue' for the purpose of levelling and combat, but my character could refer to himself in-game as "Hi, I'm <CHARNAME>, a <PCCLASS> from out of town." or something.

I'm not sure if there are any class-specific quests/content in PoE so I don't know if this would cause in-game confusion (e.g. I call my rogue a 'ranger' but then get told they'll only give the quest to a ranger so I can't help).

This could, of course, be used to comic effect.  If someone wants to do that with their game, then so be it.

 

I'd love the ability to rename classes easily, even if it were just through editable text files/modding.

[Wombat]

Based on the info so far, PoE system seems to be quite flexible as long as the functions of each class.  I've gotten an impression that it may not offer a wizard with high melee capability but if the player picks up a melee class of his/her liking and build it focusing on active abilities, I think it would function as a high maintenance melee character in context of the tactical combat gameplay even if it has a different name, which is somehow, similar to taking a rouge instead of a melee ranger.  Since the skill system and role-playing factor seem to be separated from the class concept in the tactical combat gameplay as some people here pointed out, I don't think class names matter too much in roleplaying.

 

That said, probably, such discussion would be more fruitful at least after all the updates are done for every single class.  Even about the buffing, support classes such as priests are yet to be revealed.

[Fingorn]

 

So... ...where can I vote on which of the three class pairs I'd like to see covered next?

 

 

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65027-which-class-do-you-want-to-see-covered-in-the-next-update/ 

 

Right here!

 

 

 

Voting

 

Great, thanks!

[Failedlegend]

My fav class has always been the wizard but I really want to hear about chanters so I vote Leaders of the Band.

 

As for the current update it's sounds really cool I like that the rangers Animal Companion can play a big role in making the ranger not just "the guy with the bow who likes forests"

 

Also u mentioned rogue =/= thief so is there not going to be open lock or pickpocket

 

I'd LOVE more info on the God-likes as well

Edited February 1, 2014 by Failedlegend