Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

It only looks like they're overpowered if you're not comparing 12 apples to 6 oranges. A Ranger's animal is an inherent part of that class. It's not 2 entire individual characters; one character, two entities. It's not like for every talent/ability another class gains, the Ranger AND his companion BOTH gain a new talent and ability and skill points. It's the same with Wizards and their familiars; Familiars don't just get a whole 'nother Wizard worth of Health and Stamina and spells and attack damage. They simply function as a sentient tool of the Wizard's.

 

So, between the fact that they share health/stamina pools (which we don't even know will be any larger than any other class's pools, just that they'll be split between 2 entities), and the fact that many of the abilities just listed in this update require the coordinated efforts of both the Ranger and the animal companion, I'd say the basic framework is for them to be very much not-overpowered.

 

Of course, they could end up being overpowered, but it won't simply be because there are 2 entities instead of 1. If the dev team didn't think of that 3 seconds into the Ranger design, I dare say they wouldn't have had the capacity to make ANY intelligent design decisions thus far, and we'd all have formed a huge disgruntled mob after like... Update #5 or something.

 

 

It's more than just the Ranger/Companion functioning as one character. The companion has abilities the Ranger does not and vice versa. So you could say the Ranger gets extra abilities through its companion and those abilities can be used at two different points on the screen. Or is it going to be that if your companion attacks, the Ranger has to wait for the next round?

 

So not only having an extra member In your party, I'd like to know how they're going to balance the skills compared to the other classes. Depending on how skill points are allocated, it could be possible to take skills for your pet and your Ranger at the time of level up.

 

The companion can do things like knock a target prone. If you had a 6 party Ranger set up, and came across 6 enemies, the Rangers 6 companions could knock each one prone. And the Rangers can shoot them, presuming the Rangers can attack in the same round as the companions.

[Stun]

 

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.

 

Could you do that without significant pre-fight buffing and an item advantage?

 

An Item advantage? You mean like, take away the Mage's melee weapon and then see how he does, in melee, against a heavily armed and armored Warrior?

 

Regardless, there's no logic behind trying to handicap the argument unrealistically. It's a given, in an RPG, that both classes will be able to use the buffs and items allowed to their class. That's part of what a build IS. The point is to see how they do in melee in light of all that.

Edited January 30, 2014 by Stun

[anameforobsidian]

If you're going to turn your druid or paladin into a quasi-thief, then aren't you just dual or multi-classing that character? Druid/Thief, Paladin/Thief. How is that different to what you can do in D&D? Also in the IE games, there were some things that could open locks. Paladins could attempt to bash, Mages could use Knock.

 

 

You're defining the Rogue class as a skill class, which is a bit of an error when thinking about skills in a vacuum (especially since in some IE games, certain classes couldn't dual class, like paladin/thief or paladin/bard in BG).  In PE if you want to learn lockpicking, it comes at the cost of the other skills you could have taken.  In IE games lockingpicking comes at the cost of potentially lower HD, less weapon specializations or slower spell levels, and less powerful spells.  I think it's fair to argue that the existence of less non-skill related drawbacks to picking a skill makes it easier to pick any skill they want, and thus offers greater skill flexibility.

 

Maybe Obsidian should have got rid of classes altogether. Create character at start of game and select any skills you want and make that character into anything you want. Depending on skills and Feats chosen, the end result could be a Paladin/Thief, Druid/Thief, and any number of various combinations. Maybe some people won't have pre-conceived notions that their Ranger, Rogue or any other class doesn't fit the mold that they're used to.

 

Depending on Feats and Skills chosen, the game then can assign a class to you which can change when Feats/Skills are selected when levelling up. eg. Selected Fighter skills at level 1 and game assigns the 'Fighter' title to me, selected Thieving skills at Level 2 and the game then either changes my title to either Fighter/Thief or Rogue depending on which skills predominate. Similar with selecting mage sills at level 1 and then selecting fighter skills at level 2 and now the game has given me the Fighter/Mage title.

 

 

From what I can tell, there was a lot of debate about a classless system, but it wasn't seriously considered.  These games are supposed to be somewhat faithful to the IE games, and even Torment, which played it hard and loose with PC class, still had a class system.  Personally, I like the idea of a classless party based rpg, with most combat skills pushed into feats.  That would be hell on earth to balance though.

 

It's more than just the Ranger/Companion functioning as one character. The companion has abilities the Ranger does not and vice versa. So you could say the Ranger gets extra abilities through its companion and those abilities can be used at two different points on the screen. Or is it going to be that if your companion attacks, the Ranger has to wait for the next round?

 

So not only having an extra member In your party, I'd like to know how they're going to balance the skills compared to the other classes. Depending on how skill points are allocated, it could be possible to take skills for your pet and your Ranger at the time of level up.

 

The companion can do things like knock a target prone. If you had a 6 party Ranger set up, and came across 6 enemies, the Rangers 6 companions could knock each one prone. And the Rangers can shoot them, presuming the Rangers can attack in the same round as the companions.

 

 

Those extra characters come with a significant weakness though.  Yes you gain a significant bonus to positioning and crowd control, but this is a game where even some melee characters have AoEs.  Your party would be less vulnerable to stuns and high single target damage, but would take twice the effective AoE damage from a mob with the right stats.  There's also the significant possibility of mobs being able to walk past your pets and shrug off their CC abilities.  You would have also have no healing, and your tanks would have low health pools.  You could probably do it, and it might make some fights easier and others much harder.  That's just good balance.

 

 

An Item advantage? You mean like, take away the Mage's melee weapon and then see how he does, in melee, against a heavily armed and armored Warrior?

 

Regardless, there's no logic behind trying to handicap the argument unrealistically. It's a given, in an RPG, that both classes will be able to use the buffs and items allowed to their class. That's part of what a build IS. The point is to see how they do in melee in light of all that.

 

An item advantage meaning have both of them in equipment of similar value, not one using the Holy Avenger, and the other using a +1 shortsword.  

 

As a separate issue, it's all well and good to theorycraft builds that have perfect access to rare weapons, but if a new player wouldn't know to make a bee-line for them and the build relies on that item, then the build is not worthy of consideration.

 

And one of the (few) counters fighters had to mages was spell interruption.  If a mage has five uninterrupted rounds to buff up, than that is not an equivalent fight.  It would be a lot easier for me to beat a grandmaster at chess if I was allowed five moves before they had their first one.  You're controlling the circumstances to give an advantage to your character that another human player or DM would not give them (and the system does not assume), and then counting that advantage as part of the build.

[Wombat]

Maybe Obsidian should have got rid of classes altogether. Create character at start of game and select any skills you want and make that character into anything you want. Depending on skills and Feats chosen, the end result could be a Paladin/Thief, Druid/Thief, and any number of various combinations. Maybe some people won't have pre-conceived notions that their Ranger, Rogue or any other class doesn't fit the mold that they're used to.

I asked a similar question during their Kickstarter campaign.  Means, making a skill system with class templates to make both groups happy.  While later Sawyer admitted it's possible to make a game with a scope of something like JA2, for this game, he came up with a distinct class system for tactical party-based combat with skills as an additional layer.  As a game which functions similar to D&D games, I think his choice is more reasonable than my possible suggestion.  Of course, he won't be able to cover all the fantasies (pre-conceived notions) of the players around classes but I think he is doing a great job in keeping each class distinct and valid while listening to the players when he finds it possible.

[Lephys]

It's more than just the Ranger/Companion functioning as one character. The companion has abilities the Ranger does not and vice versa. So you could say the Ranger gets extra abilities through its companion and those abilities can be used at two different points on the screen. Or is it going to be that if your companion attacks, the Ranger has to wait for the next round?

 

So not only having an extra member In your party, I'd like to know how they're going to balance the skills compared to the other classes. Depending on how skill points are allocated, it could be possible to take skills for your pet and your Ranger at the time of level up.

 

The companion can do things like knock a target prone. If you had a 6 party Ranger set up, and came across 6 enemies, the Rangers 6 companions could knock each one prone. And the Rangers can shoot them, presuming the Rangers can attack in the same round as the companions.

I'd like to know the specifics, as well, but, we've already got this:

 

 

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.

With everything that's been said about them, it seems like it's going to be that your Ranger + animal companion, working in tandem, = roughly equivalent effectiveness to any other class. Obviously that varies depending on the circumstances, and what the immediate goal is, etc. But, well, since they're grouped with the rogue as "heavy hitters," I'd say that a Ranger utilizing his animal companion will be roughly equivalent in general heavy-hitter-ness to a Rogue. Sure, the Ranger gets some benefits, like getting to possibly target 2 abilities at once (something the Rogue can't do, because he's just one entity), but, it still looks like the focus is on their collaboration producing the overall effectiveness of the class. And, from that quote above, it seems as though every point-boost to your animal's standalone abilities/capabilities comes at the cost of a point not-spent on your Ranger's, and vice versa. Thus, in the end, it still comes down to both of their powers, combined, to summon Captain Class Effectiveness.

 

In other words, if you just got the animal companion as a whole "character" (without a Ranger), it would be blatantly inferior. Same with the Ranger-minus-the-animal. And, again, that plus the fact that they share hitpoints = easily balanced.

 

I'm not at all saying it can't end up being imbalanced with them being overpowered. I'm simply saying that nothing about the sheer fact that "a Ranger" is essentially comprised of 2 individually-capable entities inherently causes the system to be horribly troublesome to balance out. And, for what it's worth, they seem to be already addressing this balancing consideration. So, we can point out plenty of "make sure this doesn't happen" notions, and that's perfectly helpful. But I, personally, don't really see a reason to just worry about the system inherently making the Ranger overpowered or anything. That's all.

 

And, for what it's worth, this isn't an opinion war or anything. You've expressed your concern, and I'm simply supplementing the discussion with my perspective on the matter. You can have an epiphany, or think I'm crazy and don't make any sense, or anything in-between, and that's fine. I'm simply pointing out what I see, in case it's of use to anyone, in regard to how the Ranger and animal companion will compare to other classes.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

And one of the (few) counters fighters had to mages was spell interruption.  If a mage has five uninterrupted rounds to buff up, than that is not an equivalent fight.  It would be a lot easier for me to beat a grandmaster at chess if I was allowed five moves before they had their first one.  You're controlling the circumstances to give an advantage to your character that another human player or DM would not give them (and the system does not assume), and then counting that advantage as part of the build.

For the sake of measuring build effectiveness, I'm assuming the No Prebuffing rule . In fact, That's going to BE the rule with POE (no spell pre-buffing) whether we like it or not. Not a big deal for a fighter-mage, since the best buffs have nearly instant casting times (Mirror Image, Stoneskin, invisibility)

 

But then, is the mage also not allowed to de-buff the warrior during combat? Because that's one of the huge advantages offered to melee mages. In my melee-mage runs in the IE games, a common tactic I used was to slow or hold my opponent. And of course, fighters can do the same to mages, with the right weapons.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Stun

[teknoman2]

a fighter mage thief in BG2 or IWD, had the thac0 bonus of the fighter, the skills of the thief (if he was not wearing heavy armor) and without armor the spells of a wizard. that means he had to rely entirely on the spells for protection by using shield or stoneskin to minimize the damage taken, while he was using his weapon to kill things and could initiate combat with a backstab to soften or kill the first enemy.

in PE a fighter has high deflection and can avoid most damage from direct physical attacks. a wizard does not have this, but he can wear the same armor as the fighter and can cast a spell like stoneskin that simply negates all damage or shield that increses his deflection. then use a conjured fire sword that targets the reflexes of the enemy, making the  enemy fighter an easy target, or use a normal weapon against a rogue that has lower deflection. and if trained in stealth, he can initiate the fight with a tactical advantage even if he cannot backstab

the options are there, but the system is new and we have no experience in using it so we swing like a pendulum on our opinion of it with every new info

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

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.

 

And, from that quote above, it seems as though every point-boost to your animal's standalone abilities/capabilities comes at the cost of a point not-spent on your Ranger's, and vice versa. Thus, in the end, it still comes down to both of their powers, combined, to summon Captain Class Effectiveness.

 

In other words, if you just got the animal companion as a whole "character" (without a Ranger), it would be blatantly inferior. Same with the Ranger-minus-the-animal. And, again, that plus the fact that they share hitpoints = easily balanced.

 

 

I took Brandon's quote as being don't invest all your points in your Ranger, save some for your companion. So you can boost both characters at the same time. There are other benefits with additional characters in your party based from other games including the IE games, whilst your Rangers shoot from a distance.  I'm not going to list those benefits because it'll just become an opinion war.  

 

Hiro: What about this Obsidian?

Random poster: Wrong Hiro, that won't happen (because my opinion is right).

 

 

 

I'm not at all saying it can't end up being imbalanced with them being overpowered. I'm simply saying that nothing about the sheer fact that "a Ranger" is essentially comprised of 2 individually-capable entities inherently causes the system to be horribly troublesome to balance out. And, for what it's worth, they seem to be already addressing this balancing consideration. So, we can point out plenty of "make sure this doesn't happen" notions, and that's perfectly helpful. But I, personally, don't really see a reason to just worry about the system inherently making the Ranger overpowered or anything. That's all. 

 

My original comment that you quoted was more of a joke. I doubt anyone would take a party of 6 Rangers. I would because I'm the sort of person that likes to create themed parties from real life examples, literature, history, films and TV. Also, my comments are in line with making sure things don't happen and I'm not worried at all.

[AW8]

I love all the Sneak Attack conditions.

[Lephys]

I took Brandon's quote as being don't invest all your points in your Ranger, save some for your companion. So you can boost both characters at the same time. There are other benefits with additional characters in your party based from other games including the IE games, whilst your Rangers shoot from a distance.  I'm not going to list those benefits because it'll just become an opinion war.

(DISCLAIMER: The following is merely an explanation of why I took it the way I did.)

 

Since they've already talked about wanting to offer build variation in all the classes, and they've already (in that quote) referred to individually investing progress resources (improvement points) into your animal companion's capabilities and your Ranger's, individually, I just sort of guessed that, at the very least, the minimum of 2 possible main focii in building a Ranger would shift between the effectiveness of your animal companion and the effectiveness of your Ranger. And since they seem to share progress resources, you'd either have to spend each given point on one or the other, in such a case.

 

So, I took it as Josh simply pointing out the merits of both focii, as in "you probably want to worry about both a bit, but you COULD just pump everything into one or the other."

 

Hiro: What about this Obsidian?

Random poster: Wrong Hiro, that won't happen (because my opinion is right).

I don't understand why when something seems a certain way to you, it's not about your opinion being right. But then, if something seems a certain way to someone else, it's automatically some kind of opinion battle.

 

IF you're claiming something to be definitively true (such-and-such is how the system's going to be, and that's problematic), then someone pointing out how that isn't necessarily true is telling you you're wrong. However, if you're just saying "this could happen," and someone else says "Yeah, and that would be a problem, but this could also happen, so that that wouldn't be a problem," why is there anything to do beyond just mutually note one another's observations and consider them both now?

 

In other words, why isn't bringing up possible solutions to concerns just as valid as bringing up concerns, themselves? Isn't that what bringing up the concerns is all about? Making sure they aren't still concerns in the final product?

 

My original comment that you quoted was more of a joke. I doubt anyone would take a party of 6 Rangers. I would because I'm the sort of person that likes to create themed parties from real life examples, literature, history, films and TV. Also, my comments are in line with making sure things don't happen and I'm not worried at all.

I got that. I simply took it objectively, as an example that illustrated how an imbalance between other classes and the Ranger class, with its animal companion, would affect things. If there was an imbalance significant enough, and you DID do that (6-Ranger party), you'd basically win the game, versus any other party composition. Even if it was just a half-joke, it still made that good point. It's not as if I was responding only only to concerns about a 6-Ranger party.

 

 

Also, I think animal companions should get a passive, conditional ability called Snack Attack.

[Wombat]

 

And one of the (few) counters fighters had to mages was spell interruption.  If a mage has five uninterrupted rounds to buff up, than that is not an equivalent fight.  It would be a lot easier for me to beat a grandmaster at chess if I was allowed five moves before they had their first one.  You're controlling the circumstances to give an advantage to your character that another human player or DM would not give them (and the system does not assume), and then counting that advantage as part of the build.

For the sake of measuring build effectiveness, I'm assuming the No Prebuffing rule . In fact, That's going to BE the rule with POE (no spell pre-buffing) whether we like it or not. Not a big deal for a fighter-mage, since the best buffs have nearly instant casting times (Mirror Image, Stoneskin, invisibility)

 

But then, is the mage also not allowed to de-buff the warrior during combat? Because that's one of the huge advantages offered to melee mages. In my melee-mage runs in the IE games, a common tactic I used was to slow or hold my opponent. And of course, fighters can do the same to mages, with the right weapons.

 

Hmmm...I guess I translated "buff up" into active ability usage in my mind.  Probably, still too early to discuss this since we don't know about how interruption works...  That said, DEF of a wizard doesn't seem to be high so, it wouldn't be desirable for a wizard to be under fierce physical attacks as Grimoire Slam indicates.  Less importantly, I'm still not sure they are eliminating any buff even if they are unlikely go for the direction of that buff-debuff rote-heavy BG2.  Hopefully, coming updates will shed more light on the topic.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Wombat

[Lephys]

Less importantly, I'm still not sure they are eliminating any buff even if they are unlikely go for the direction of that buff-debuff rote-heavy BG2.  Hopefully, coming updates will shed more light on the topic.

What he's talking about is that Josh has said that you won't be able to cast buffs until combat has started. Thus, gone is all the "pre-buffing" as we know it. It's not that buffs are gone. Just that buffing up before starting combat (pre-buffing) is gone.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Lephys

[Wombat]

 

What he's talking about is that Josh has said that you won't be able to cast buffs until combat has started. Thus, gone is all the "pre-buffing" as we know it. It's not that buffs are gone. Just that buffing up before starting combat (pre-buffing) is gone.

Yeah, that's my understanding, too.  Hence the comment about the possible tactical importance of active ability interruption, which we are yet to know.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Wombat

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I took Brandon's quote as being don't invest all your points in your Ranger, save some for your companion. So you can boost both characters at the same time. There are other benefits with additional characters in your party based from other games including the IE games, whilst your Rangers shoot from a distance.  I'm not going to list those benefits because it'll just become an opinion war.

(DISCLAIMER: The following is merely an explanation of why I took it the way I did.)

 

Since they've already talked about wanting to offer build variation in all the classes, and they've already (in that quote) referred to individually investing progress resources (improvement points) into your animal companion's capabilities and your Ranger's, individually, I just sort of guessed that, at the very least, the minimum of 2 possible main focii in building a Ranger would shift between the effectiveness of your animal companion and the effectiveness of your Ranger. And since they seem to share progress resources, you'd either have to spend each given point on one or the other, in such a case.

 

So, I took it as Josh simply pointing out the merits of both focii, as in "you probably want to worry about both a bit, but you COULD just pump everything into one or the other."

 

There's no indication that you can't put points in both. You seem to be taking the stance that it's either Ranger or Companion. I'm suggesting that you may have a few points to either put in your Ranger, put in your companion or divide the points up into both Ranger and Companion when you level up. That's the impression I got from Brandon's post. I don't see why the game should limit you with an either or choice. Either put the points in Ranger or put the points in Companion and that's it. 

 

 

 

Hiro: What about this Obsidian?

Random poster: Wrong Hiro, that won't happen (because my opinion is right).

I don't understand why when something seems a certain way to you, it's not about your opinion being right. But then, if something seems a certain way to someone else, it's automatically some kind of opinion battle.

 

IF you're claiming something to be definitively true (such-and-such is how the system's going to be, and that's problematic), then someone pointing out how that isn't necessarily true is telling you you're wrong. However, if you're just saying "this could happen," and someone else says "Yeah, and that would be a problem, but this could also happen, so that that wouldn't be a problem," why is there anything to do beyond just mutually note one another's observations and consider them both now?

 

In other words, why isn't bringing up possible solutions to concerns just as valid as bringing up concerns, themselves? Isn't that what bringing up the concerns is all about? Making sure they aren't still concerns in the final product? 

 

I'm not claiming anything to be definitively true. If you're going to take the stance that I'm claiming stuff to be definitively true when I'm not, and quote posts because of this weird perception that I'm claiming truth, then you need to read my posts again. Also, if questions are being asked to Obsidian and random posters are shooting down those questions with hypotheticals, then wouldn't it be better to hear from Obsidian with an answer than a random poster on the internet with very little knowledge and guess work? That's all I'm saying, because otherwise it ends up being an opinion war. I don't see how you could have got anything else from my example you've just quoted.

 

 

 

My original comment that you quoted was more of a joke. I doubt anyone would take a party of 6 Rangers. I would because I'm the sort of person that likes to create themed parties from real life examples, literature, history, films and TV. Also, my comments are in line with making sure things don't happen and I'm not worried at all.

I got that. I simply took it objectively, as an example that illustrated how an imbalance between other classes and the Ranger class, with its animal companion, would affect things. If there was an imbalance significant enough, and you DID do that (6-Ranger party), you'd basically win the game, versus any other party composition. Even if it was just a half-joke, it still made that good point. It's not as if I was responding only only to concerns about a 6-Ranger party. 

 

I don't think you would win the game easily if there was an imbalance. Some encounters may be easy, while others would be difficult. Unless you selected skills with some of your Rangers to compensate. One Ranger could specialise in Thievery, another in Healing, another in something else and so on. But it may still be a challenge. Or it could be OP that you walk right through the game. No one knows. I was curious about the balance if you had one or more rangers in your party which the dev's would be reading this thread..

[Lephys]

There's no indication that you can't put points in both. You seem to be taking the stance that it's either Ranger or Companion.

I don't know what's making me seem to take that stance. I simply said that you'd have to put each point into either one or the other. In other words, they share level-up resources. No, I don't know for a fact. It seems that they share level-up resources, from that little 2-line quote I posted above, from the update.

 

Thus, I'm in no way disputing what you've said. I was simply talking about focii/branches for build type. A build "tree," if you will. At the very least (meaning there COULD very well be much more to it than this), you'd have the "beef up your companion" branch and the "beef up your Ranger" branch. Thus, with 10 points, you could spend 'em 10 and 0, or 7 and 3, or 5 and 5, or 3 and 7, or 0 and 10, etc. Yet, all your abilities that still rely on teamwork would be detrimented by the weaker "half" of the Ranger, resulting in different strengths and weaknesses. Maybe you focus on supporting your animal companion from afar while it takes stuff down and/or deals the heavy damage. Maybe you focus on your animal supporting your Ranger by controlling things while your Ranger's shots/attacks do all the heavy-lifting. Or some combination there-in.

 

That's what I was getting at. Absolutely nothing to do with disputing what you've said, or telling the devs not to come give us nice official infos, or any of that.

 

I'm not claiming anything to be definitively true.If you're going to take the stance that I'm claiming stuff to be definitively true when I'm not, and quote posts because of this weird perception that I'm claiming truth, then you need to read my posts again.

I'm not, and I didn't say you were. I simply stated what was true IF you were claiming such. Which automatically covers what is true when you aren't claiming such.

 

The point was, you're implying that your mere observations of possibilities/concerns with the limited knowledge we have with the given system are perfectly valid (which they are), but then, other people's mere observations of possibilities which would alleviate/take care of such concerns (and are perfectly feasible within the confines of the presented system, I might add) cannot simply be that, and must somehow be claiming that the game will definitely eliminate those concerns or be devoid of those problems.

 

I don't know about you, but I can't summon a statement from Josh Sawyer with the snap of my fingers, so I, personally, choose to put what effort I can into voicing what seem to be valid ways of addressing valid concerns with the in-progress system, until such time as we hear official word on it from the devs. Why is saying "Hey, FYI, here's a way to make sure that doesn't happen" somehow "shooting down" questions and concerns?

 

I don't think you would win the game easily if there was an imbalance. Some encounters may be easy, while others would be difficult. Unless you selected skills with some of your Rangers to compensate. One Ranger could specialise in Thievery, another in Healing, another in something else and so on. But it may still be a challenge. Or it could be OP that you walk right through the game. No one knows. I was curious about the balance if you had one or more rangers in your party which the dev's would be reading this thread..

I just meant that if each Ranger AND animal companion each performed as almost the equivalent of a whole, individual character from any other class, then having 12 characters would probably make the game pretty easy. Which is why the functionality of animal and Ranger need to be well-integrated into the overall Ranger class, so that they collectively function as one, rather than there being some significant imbalance due to their being double-trouble. Which is why that's a perfectly valid concern. But, I also suspect just from the dev team's general attitude and the design of things thus far (that they've revealed) that they've already got that concern in mind with the design of the Ranger class. Just for what it's worth.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Lephys

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I'm not claiming anything to be definitively true.If you're going to take the stance that I'm claiming stuff to be definitively true when I'm not, and quote posts because of this weird perception that I'm claiming truth, then you need to read my posts again.

I'm not, and I didn't say you were. I simply stated what was true IF you were claiming such. Which automatically covers what is true when you aren't claiming such. 

 

 

Well I'm not claiming anything is true, I'm asking a question. That's what my post was about. Also, I highlighted part of your quote in Bold. And what are you claiming to be true? Because from your posts I can't decide what is true and what is fiction and would go with the latter. Just to re-iterate what I'm saying, here's a screen shot of the above:

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can have the last say. I just ask you to read my posts first before going off on wild tangents.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

Well I'm not claiming anything is true. I'm asking questions. So you shouldn't worry about non-existant What if's knowing full well I wasn't claiming anything to be true. Also, I highlighted part of your quote in Bold. And what are you claiming to be true? Because from your posts I can't decide what is true and what is fiction.

*sigh*... If person A says "this is true," THEN person B can now actually correct them, definitively, and it's not just "well that's your opinion." If person A simply says "I'm worried this might happen," then person B can't actually correct them on anything. But, person B can still say "Here are ways in which that wouldn't be able to happen," and they aren't correcting anything, or challenging any opinions. They're simply supplementing the discussion.

 

That's what I'm "claiming" is true, in the portion you bolded. This is relevant because you accuse "random posters" of telling you you're wrong, which I have yet to see here. So, it seems as if you're simply perceiving people's supplemental opinions and perspectives as corrections or truth claims. *shrug*

 

From this...

 

I'm not claiming anything to be definitively true.If you're going to take the stance that I'm claiming stuff to be definitively true when I'm not, and quote posts because of this weird perception that I'm claiming truth, then you need to read my posts again.

... I don't gather what's causing it to "seem" as though I've taken such a stance. I'm very curious to know, so that I might avoid giving people that impression in the future, because all I'm doing is responding to your words with my own perspective on the matter. The reason I'm quoting you is because we're addressing the same things. You seem to be defending your opinions from my opinions, for some reason, and I don't know why. And, apparently it's because I seem to be correcting your opinions, which I'm not doing. So, seems like if I could take efforts to not make it seem like that, we could avoid an awful lot of back-to-back clarifications and "I never said"s. *shrug*

Edited January 31, 2014 by Lephys

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Has the Paladin's smite-like ability been covered yet? All I can recall is that it was named Flames of Devotion.

[Clean&Clear]

 

Less importantly, I'm still not sure they are eliminating any buff even if they are unlikely go for the direction of that buff-debuff rote-heavy BG2.  Hopefully, coming updates will shed more light on the topic.

What he's talking about is that Josh has said that you won't be able to cast buffs until combat has started. Thus, gone is all the "pre-buffing" as we know it. It's not that buffs are gone. Just that buffing up before starting combat (pre-buffing) is gone.

 

Where did he say this pls?

[Monte Carlo]

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?

[IRMA]

The Mob rulers! 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

 

Less importantly, I'm still not sure they are eliminating any buff even if they are unlikely go for the direction of that buff-debuff rote-heavy BG2.  Hopefully, coming updates will shed more light on the topic.

What he's talking about is that Josh has said that you won't be able to cast buffs until combat has started. Thus, gone is all the "pre-buffing" as we know it. It's not that buffs are gone. Just that buffing up before starting combat (pre-buffing) is gone.

 

 

Where did he say this pls?

 

 

Josh mentions it here.

 

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.

[magicwallis]

 

Well I'm not claiming anything is true. I'm asking questions. So you shouldn't worry about non-existant What if's knowing full well I wasn't claiming anything to be true. Also, I highlighted part of your quote in Bold. And what are you claiming to be true? Because from your posts I can't decide what is true and what is fiction.

*sigh*... If person A says "this is true," THEN person B can now actually correct them, definitively, and it's not just "well that's your opinion." If person A simply says "I'm worried this might happen," then person B can't actually correct them on anything. But, person B can still say "Here are ways in which that wouldn't be able to happen," and they aren't correcting anything, or challenging any opinions. They're simply supplementing the discussion.

 

That's what I'm "claiming" is true, in the portion you bolded. This is relevant because you accuse "random posters" of telling you you're wrong, which I have yet to see here. So, it seems as if you're simply perceiving people's supplemental opinions and perspectives as corrections or truth claims. *shrug*

 

From this...

 

I'm not claiming anything to be definitively true.If you're going to take the stance that I'm claiming stuff to be definitively true when I'm not, and quote posts because of this weird perception that I'm claiming truth, then you need to read my posts again.

... I don't gather what's causing it to "seem" as though I've taken such a stance. I'm very curious to know, so that I might avoid giving people that impression in the future, because all I'm doing is responding to your words with my own perspective on the matter. The reason I'm quoting you is because we're addressing the same things. You seem to be defending your opinions from my opinions, for some reason, and I don't know why. And, apparently it's because I seem to be correcting your opinions, which I'm not doing. So, seems like if I could take efforts to not make it seem like that, we could avoid an awful lot of back-to-back clarifications and "I never said"s. *shrug*

 

 

'SOCRATES: If you own an original Daedalus, unshackled, it's not worth all that much...because it doesn't stay put. But if you've got one that's shackled, it's very valuable. Because they're really lovely pieces of work. It's the same with true opinions. True opinions, as long as they stay put, are a fine thing and do us a whole lot of good. Only, they tend mot to stay put for very long. They're always scampering away from a person's soul. So they are not very valuable until you shackle them by figuring out what makes them true, And then, once they're shackled, they turn into knowledge, and become stable and fixed. So that's why knowledge is a more valuable thing than correct opinion, and that's how knowledge differs from a correct opinion: by a shackle.'

 

- Plato's Meno

[tazntaylr]

^{So looking forward to using these two classes.}

[teknoman2]

 

 

 

Less importantly, I'm still not sure they are eliminating any buff even if they are unlikely go for the direction of that buff-debuff rote-heavy BG2.  Hopefully, coming updates will shed more light on the topic.

What he's talking about is that Josh has said that you won't be able to cast buffs until combat has started. Thus, gone is all the "pre-buffing" as we know it. It's not that buffs are gone. Just that buffing up before starting combat (pre-buffing) is gone.

 

 

Where did he say this pls?

 

 

Josh mentions it here.

 

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.

 

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