Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers

[ful]

The ingame shots are looking great. Especially love the lighting, which is so important, but overlooked by many.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I've never played WoW or 4E, so I can't say whether or not Kahani's concerns are well-grounded, but on many of the BG boards, 4E gets a lot of hate.  Does it play that much differently than the 2nd and 3rd editions?

4E is regularly panned for being too much like a videogame and not enough like tabletop, which I sort of agree with(I prefer Pathfinder myself).

 

That said, the parts that PoE is using from 4E are the things that would work best with a videogame(as the honorable Tamerlane has said) and most players hate new editions released directly after their preferred edition of D&D.

[milczyciel]

Though I wouldn't mind an explanation of sorts (from a region lore or maybe some local npc) who and why cleared all the rubles from the structure interiors.

 

Yeah, I too noticed the collapsed roof/rubble etc. was missing from the ground, like the ruins from last time.

MasterPrudent explained that here so I'm glad it didn't turned out to be an overlooked detail.

Yeah, I tend to be a nitpicky bastard :D

[Sensuki]

Gonna go with Fighter & Barbarian because currently we know the least about Barbarians and their concept has changed a bit.

[Stun]

Can't say I'm totally impressed with this. The entire update could have been replaced with simply "We're copying WoW". Why not try to come up with something original? Or at the very least stick closer to the D&D style this game is supposed to be a call-back to. Rogues were never meant to be amazing fighters who do more than actual fighters, they were deliberately weak in a fight because the game wasn't all about fighting and they had other things to do instead.

Good point. It kinda does have a "WOW" vibe to it. It's not blatant. But you can sense the influence. In all, I'm not quite sure what to make of that. But I do know that I'm not all that happy that the Devs themselves have seen fit to assign those Labels to the classes. They call Rogues "heavy hitters". WOW calls them "DPS Kings". But in the IE games, and of course in D&D, they were nothing of the sort. They were the sneaks and the scouts. They were the lock pickers, trap disarmers, trap setters and pickpockets. In combat, they weren't the heaviest hitters. Not by a long shot. They could backstab for massive damage but only on occasion. They used the lower tier weapons, like Daggers and short swords. Not the big guns that the true heavy hitters used, like massive swords and greataxes.

 

And it seems that the "WOW influence" will extend to the other classes too. This update defines Mages as "Mob Rulers". WOW calls mages "crowd control". In the IE games and in D&D Mages didn't have such titles. Mainly because you could make your mage do just about anything extremely well. And of course, the Warrior classes are the "front liners" in POE, aka "tanks" in WOW lingo, I don't have a problem with that at all, but in the IE games, Fighters were the best fighters. THEY were the heavy hitters.

 

 

I'll keep an open mind. But when this game comes out and I play it, if combat feels like WOW or Dragon Age Origins, my Rage will be severe.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Stun

[redneckdevil]

Omg omg omg excellent update! Looking awesome!

As a pnp dm/player its solo nice to see the love the rogue is getting.

 

Sigh plz take as long as u need, we backed u so u have the opportunity to do so, but alas I really really can't wait for this to come out lmao

[Skarum]

Really looking forward t oplaying as a rogue. For some reason I really enjoy being a class cannon, and it looks like rogues are heading in that direction for PoE.

 

Mob Rulers next please! 

[Gyor]

If Rogues, Ciphers, Rangers are heavy hitters, Fighters and Barbarians are front liners, Wizards and Druids are Mob Rulers, and Priests and Chanters are Leaders of the Band, what are Paladins and Monks?

 

Btw I vote Leaders of the Band.

[Private Ryan]

Do we vote just by saying it in the comments?

Great update! Love all the things going on here. Initially thought I'd give the ranger a pass, but it sounds amazing!

Keep up the good work

 

Would love to hear about The Mob Rulers! Cheers!

[oldrocker99]

Good grief, what a terrific update. I'm getting more and more excited and more and more eager to play this amazing game. No game I've contributed to via Kickstarter has captured my interest like POE, and that includes Wasteland 2.

Good thing I'm retired; I have a LOT of gaming to do in the next year!

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Can't say I'm totally impressed with this. The entire update could have been replaced with simply "We're copying WoW". Why not try to come up with something original? Or at the very least stick closer to the D&D style this game is supposed to be a call-back to. Rogues were never meant to be amazing fighters who do more than actual fighters, they were deliberately weak in a fight because the game wasn't all about fighting and they had other things to do instead.

Good point. It kinda does have a "WOW" vibe to it. It's not blatant. But you can sense the influence. In all, I'm not quite sure what to make of that. But I do know that I'm not all that happy that the Devs themselves have seen fit to assign those Labels to the classes. They call Rogues "heavy hitters". WOW calls them "DPS Kings". But in the IE games, and of course in D&D, they were nothing of the sort. They were the sneaks and the scouts. They were the lock pickers, trap disarmers, trap setters and pickpockets. In combat, they weren't the heaviest hitters. Not by a long shot. They could backstab for massive damage but only on occasion. They used the lower tier weapons, like Daggers and short swords. Not the big guns that the true heavy hitters used, like massive swords and greataxes.

 

And it seems that the "WOW influence" will extend to the other classes too. This update defines Mages as "Mob Rulers". WOW calls mages "crowd control". In the IE games and in D&D Mages didn't have such titles. Mainly because you could make your mage do just about anything extremely well. And of course, the Warrior classes are the "front liners" in POE, aka "tanks" in WOW lingo, I don't have a problem with that at all, but in the IE games, Fighters were the best fighters. THEY were the heavy hitters.

 

 

I'll keep an open mind. But when this game comes out and I play it, if combat feels like WOW or Dragon Age Origins, my Rage will be severe.

 

 

It's the same in 4th Edition. I've never played WoW so I didn't know they were similar. When I read the update, it felt like reading a 4E update. There are so many similarities, it's uncanny.

 

You have 4 different types of characters in 4th Edition. Strikers (the heavy hitters like Rogues and Rangers), Defenders (Fighters), Leaders (Healers) and Controllers (Wizards). Even the update references one of these names. eg. Leaders of the Band (chanters and priests). Also, the Ranger seems to be very similar to a Beastmaster from 4E. It's very much like D&D, but probably not the version you were after? 

[ZornWO]

I feel 4E is more like 2E and not really like 3E with classes. (...)

 

 

 

4E is regularly panned for being too much like a videogame and not enough like tabletop, which I sort of agree with(I prefer Pathfinder myself).

 

That said, the parts that PoE is using from 4E are the things that would work best with a videogame(as the honorable Tamerlane has said) and most players hate new editions released directly after their preferred edition of D&D.

 

 

Thanks guys, you both were very informative.

 

 

Yeah, I tend to be a nitpicky bastard :D

 

MasterPrudent explained that here so I'm glad it didn't turned out to be an overlooked detail.

 

Is that to read between the lines to say the Glanfathans who defend the ruins also clear them?  That's a reasonable theory.  It also implies the Engwithan ruins fell to disrepair beforethe Glanfathans started to view them as sacred (unless there was a big disruption in the Glanfathans' site maintenance at some point).

Edited January 29, 2014 by ZornWO

[Azmodan]

I look forward to an update about Priests and how these compare to Paladins and Clerics in DnD3E.

One great thing 3E introduced was spell conversion (Good and Neutral Clerics converted memorised spell to equal-level Cure spells, Evil to Wounds), which encouraged the creation of more militant Clerics.

 

As for using quasi-WoW jargon to describe the relative combat role of a given class, I'd attribute this to the fact that WoW is a source of colloquialisms. I don't read into it beyond that.

I'd expect an RTS developer similarly use terms like zergrush and turtling in relation to issuing a short, "conceptual" teaser.

 

Lastly - in regard to anyone complaining re: specifics (+100% damage etc.) or the lack of these.... 

 

Alpha testing will determine the values.

[Stun]

As for using quasi-WoW jargon to describe the relative combat role of a given class, I'd attribute this to the fact that WoW is a source of colloquialisms.

Indeed it is. Specifically, it lends itself easily to colloquialisms because of the cookie-cutter, one dimensional, easily definable nature of the builds. And the fact that combat practically REQUIRES that each of these roles be filled.

 

It's not deal breaker. I actually had a lot of fun playing WOW, for about a year. But Please obsidian, please: Don't mimic WOW with the specifics. I do not want to see a "Threat Generation" mechanic on my front liners, for example. Just...Don't.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Stun

[Tuckey]

My impressions

============

 

-Nice to see some new tree models.

 

-I wonder if we will see birds flying overhead like in the IE games.

 

-Cool stones on those ruins and I even like the cliff face.

 

-Rogues attack like cowards basically and are no good in a straight fight ~ makes sense

 

-Rangers with an animal companion sounds cool. I wonder what animals we will get. (Please let there be dire wolves and hawks.)

 

-Will survivor skills translate into ability to find interesting herbs and salves from nature?

 

 

P.S

 

I would like to see wizards next.

[Ffordesoon]

@KaineParker:

 

Yeah, that's the thing. I actually started with 4E before moving on very quickly to Pathfinder, and the reason I chose to switch is because 4E is an amazing design document for an unmade video game that was mistakenly published as The New D&D. I've been delighted to see Sawyer taking so much from it, despite not being a fan of 4E proper. It's a shame there isn't a Pathfinder equivalent for 4E, because a lot of the design choices in it were sound ones that didn't go far enough. The changes to casters in particular were very smart.

 

I sort of wish Wizards would rebrand 4E as D&D Basic Edition - that's the role it ultimately served for me, and probably for a lot of other players new to tabletop. Then they could call D&D Next AD&D 5th Edition, and have people graduate to it.

 

As to the update:

 

The Rogue sounds like my kind of class. The alleged lack of roguishness displayed by this take on the Rogue is not, in fact, a lack of roguishness, but a lack of thiefishness.

 

(Which, er, may not be a word, but shut up.)

 

The common portrayal of "rogues" is, in fact, a concatenation of at least three archetypes: Assassin (or Ninja, if you balk at the idea of your good character being an Assassin), Thief, and Bard. PE has its Bard-type already in the Chanter, and a Thief who's useful in combat (which every class in PE must be, seeing as how the game is theoretically soloable and full of combat) is no longer an archetypal Thief, and is instead closer to an Assassin. The Thief is effectively a non-combat class. Add to this the segregation of combat and non-combat skills, and that PoE will be home to multiple classes which can perform the actions the Thief archetype is known for. Given these restrictions, focusing on the Assassin part of the equation and making the Rogue the class that's the best at Thief-y stuff if players want to roleplay a Thief-y Rogue makes the most sense if the Rogue is to feel distinct from other classes.

 

The Front Liners next, please. Or the other two. As long as we get all three eventually, I don't care all that much.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

We know that Wizards can either be Controllers with aoe/duration type spells or Strikers as muscle wizards with high Might and Low Int. And Josh did say a muscle wizard should be viable even though you aren't taking full advantage of all their spells and "the power of the wizard is not in brute force, but overall flexibility".

 

I wouldn't mind knowing if you can change a character to a different play style like the Fighter. Turn the Fighters into Strikers. Will be fun to see what sort of game it will be if you change classes to something they're designed not to be.

[Silent Winter]

I have a support issue in the context of this update.

<snip>

... I cannot create an account under the email address I backed kickstarter with, because my email address is already in use. But I also cannot recover my password because my email address is unknown.

Have you tried just logging in with your forum account name and password? (I had the same message that my address was already in use and it turned out I already automatically had a backer-site account from having a forum account (even though I wasn't a backer at the time ) )

If that's a different e-mail from the one you used for the kickstarter, it's ok - you can associate your other e-mail with the current account from within the backer site.

[keysersoze]

Sounds great, in particular the "Finishing Blow (Active)", great mechanic for people who are pushing the edges tactically, but can be safely ignored by more casual players

[milczyciel]

After giving it a second thought I would like to support others sentiment of pet-less ranger, preferably via Fallout-like trait with it's ups and downs. Storywise cons could dominate over pros of such character, as long as the trade-off is unique.

If not for the feeling of "common sense" then just for kicks. If no - fine. It's just the thought to play with

 

But c'mon, does every one of them have to be a PETa activist? Not even a single kid in a world, longing for ranger life, dreaming about turning poor little Orlans into hedgehogs with his trusty bow, but at the same time... ooh I don't know... being allergic to fur or feathers? Disliking the idea of cleaning their companion's poo, or - simple as that - being indifferent about little buggers? Or not so little if we are talking grizzly-scale... <snap>

Oh my... imagine cleaning after well fed grizzly 

 

Ugh. Screw that, I have to reconsider my carrier choice.

Edited January 29, 2014 by milczyciel

[exodiark]

There's (to my mind) a certain dissonance in the Rogues description, quote: "The designation of a character as a "rogue" signifies their vicious, brutal style of fighting." and "Rely on the vulnerability of their enemies to inflict devastating attacks in close quarters." This to me speaks of discipline and superior training in weapons and styles of killing, and where exactly is the Rogue-ishness in that? To me a roguish personality is carefree and undisciplined, not settling down or mastering anything, a wastrel if you will, rather than what we see here which sounds more like a highly trained professional killer of some sort.

 

Anyway enough of the negative waves, thank you for the update.

The word brutal is the key. Brutes are normally carefree and undisciplined. I think even they can exploit weaknesses and fight dirty. Edited January 29, 2014 by exodiark

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I echo the sentiments of being able to dismiss your pet. Perhaps it can find it's way back to your stronghold and you recruit it again if you wish? A section of your stronghold for your pets, kennels, stables, etc.

[Osvir]

Loving it! :D regarding the animal companion I am just curious if we'll be able to change it or find new ones during the course of the game. Like others have said, maybe being able to have 2-3. And the Ranger seems to be heavy on the animal companion BUT, is it possible to have a build without a companion?

Edér is a new companion I understand, very similar name to Edair. Is Edair kicked/replaced?

One question:


I am noticing some re-use of the constructs, they are just placed at different angles and such. Props kind of stuff. Take the northern most 3-pillar construct and the one on the SE (south east) location, they are the same. Would this be potential "items" to use in potential map-making?

As for what type of combo I'd like to see hmm, I don't know. All of them?

Edited January 29, 2014 by Osvir

[silverjace]

Nice update, I'd like to see the Mob rulers next please 

[DCParry]

 

As for using quasi-WoW jargon to describe the relative combat role of a given class, I'd attribute this to the fact that WoW is a source of colloquialisms.

Indeed it is. Specifically, it lends itself easily to colloquialisms because of the cookie-cutter, one dimensional, easily definable nature of the builds. And the fact that combat practically REQUIRES that each of these roles be filled.

 

It's not deal breaker. I actually had a lot of fun playing WOW, for about a year. But Please obsidian, please: Don't mimic WOW with the specifics. I do not want to see a "Threat Generation" mechanic on my front liners, for example. Just...Don't.

 

 

 

....

 

That is not how language works. 

 

 

Hyperbole and over reation seem to dominate all of your comments. If you don't like Sawyer and co's idea of game design, I wonder why you are here.