Update #71: The Heavy Hitters: Rogues and Rangers

[Asmodean]

Great Update. I like the rogue

[Crusader_bin]

I wonder, how the priests will turn out? Some kind of twist would be welcome The only memorable priest in all of video games to me is Viconia from BG.

[O.DOGG]

The rogue sounds (and looks) great. I'd like to learn more about my front-liners next, please

[Stun]

I wonder, how the priests will turn out? Some kind of twist would be welcome

Well, we already know of 1 twist to the standard RPG priest: No healing spells.

[Anaeme]

There are so many new class re-alignments, abilities and talents showing up...learning curve will be very steep

 

People coming into the game will stumble for a while

[curryinahurry]

Indeed the class system seems to be heavily influenced by 4E concept of 'roles'.  While I don't mind this so much as a set of guidelines, we were promised a great deal of latitude in building character concepts.  What I am reading in this and past updates is sounding very prescriptive, and I don't like it much.  

 

What if I want to build a melee ranger? A more traditional IE type 'Thief' (ranged weapons, trap laying, stealth, and some backstabbing...but light on melee)?  What if I like the Ranger class but don't much care for an animal companion, will I be gimping myself?

 

For almost every class update we have had, there have been several items I have liked, and a few I haven't.  Many of us have fairly clear ideas of how we want classes to play and 'feel'.  And while I recognize there will always have to be adjustments and accommodations, we should be able to play the class(es) of our choice in the manner we would most like.  That is what we were promised during the KS campaign.

[IndiraLightfoot]

First off, very exciting update!

 

Awesome - I'd say there is an 80% chance I'll be playing one of these two classes first so great to see some of the ways they will work!

Heh, for me, it's almost 100% certain that I'll play a ranger. And a rogue will be in my first party as well.

 

While I am not a big, personal fan of the direction they went in for the ranger, it seems a lot of people like it so that is cool. Like a few others I am curious if you can build an archer/musketeer character without an animal companion (either a some trade-off for the ranger, like say a "Wilderness Betrayer" perk where you sacrificed your companion to save your own life in the past and while you don't get the advantages of the companion you get other boni [to defense, or stamina regen or some such], or a warrior who specializes in ranged combat).  

While I love the idea of a ranger with an animal companion, having a special bond and all that, I would be very happy if there were another ranger path to take already at level 1 - one where you dismissed your soul animal in your youth, and instead you became a hunter, which almost kills animals too keenly, using ranged weapons perhaps even better than animal-cuddling rangers themselves.

 

 

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? 

 

Well spotted, Hiro!

Like KaineParker, I much prefer the 3rd ed of D&D, well for PnP especially, but for CRPGs too, I reckon. But for a CRPG, many of the mechanics we see in the 4th ed do fit very nicely this kind of CRPG system proposed here for PE. Hopefully, the roles won't be as clearcut, though, but I hope for the same char development diversity as well, then.

[pipboy2000]

First of all: Thank you for all the effort you put into this game and for sharing this great info!

 

I can't wait to play the game with a rogue! I really, REALLY love the fact, that you seperated the "thief" and the "heavy hitter"!

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Update by Josh Sawyer, Project Director

 

 

All rogues start with three abilities that allow them to immediately dive into heavy-hitting: Finishing Blow, Reckless Assault, and Dirty Fighting.

 

• Finishing Blow (Active) - Full Attack. This ability gains power the more damaged the target is. When the rogue uses a Finishing Blow, he or she makes a full attack at the enemy with his or her current weapons. The attack is made with an Accuracy bonus and does +50% damage if it hits. For every 1% under 50% Max Stamina the target has, the attack does an additional +3% damage. 3/rest.
• Reckless Assault (Modal) - In this mode, a rogue's Deflection is lowered but he or she gains a bonus to Accuracy and damage with all weapons.
• Dirty Fighting - 10% of the rogue's Hits with any melee or ranged weapon are turned into Crits. This occurs after the initial attack roll is resolved. The resulting shift is displayed in the combat log. 

 

Hi Josh / Brandon,

 

I take it the accuracy bonus with the Finishing blow attack is inline with your main stats as per below? I'm guessing DEX is going to be a stat we want to pump up to take advantage of the accuracy bonus with this attack.

 

Also, Reckless Assault seems to take it's benefit from DEX and MIG with it's bonus to Accuracy and damage?

 

What do the other stats below do? Like INT, PER and RES?

 

 

[Messier-31]

Sweet update, BUT since when Edér is a rogue? Wasn't he supposed to be a fighter?

[Ieo]

Edair? Edér? Hmmm. Warrior/fighter, rogue/thief? Hmmm. 

 

Hmmmm.

 

Oh, beautiful henge-like ruins thing!

 

And that's all I gots since I'm tired. Good night.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Indeed the class system seems to be heavily influenced by 4E concept of 'roles'.  While I don't mind this so much as a set of guidelines, we were promised a great deal of latitude in building character concepts.  What I am reading in this and past updates is sounding very prescriptive, and I don't like it much.  

 

What if I want to build a melee ranger? A more traditional IE type 'Thief' (ranged weapons, trap laying, stealth, and some backstabbing...but light on melee)?  What if I like the Ranger class but don't much care for an animal companion, will I be gimping myself?

 

For almost every class update we have had, there have been several items I have liked, and a few I haven't.  Many of us have fairly clear ideas of how we want classes to play and 'feel'.  And while I recognize there will always have to be adjustments and accommodations, we should be able to play the class(es) of our choice in the manner we would most like.  That is what we were promised during the KS campaign.

 

In 4E, you can have different roles and types of Rangers. Hunter (Controller), Scout (melee weapons Striker) or just a normal Ranger (Striker) with bow and blade. There are also two types of Rogues being the Scoundrel or Thief with different abilities.

 

Similar with other classes. A Fighter in 4E can have different roles. Knight (Defender), Weaponmaster (Defender) or Slayer (Striker). Barbarians can also be Berserkers (Defender) or a normal Barbarian (Striker). We've already seen this with the WIzard being able to be a Controller (INT based) or Striker (muscle wizard) in PoE which you can do something similar in 4E. 4Ed has Wizards that are Controllers, Srocerers that are Strikers and Warlocks that are either Controller or Strikers.

 

I'm hoping changing stats will change the role of that character. Maybe the designers haven't designed it that way. I'm hoping it's a viable option.

[curryinahurry]

^  thanks, that's a bit more appealing.  While I think its unlikely that we will get that much flexibility in class customization to allow for sub-classes or kits, I'm hoping that we get at least enough flexibility to make variations .  If the bones of a system like what you're describing is put into place, then i think Obsidian and build on it in future games.  That would be fine with me. 

[Azmodan]

 

Well, we already know of 1 twist to the standard RPG priest: No healing spells.

 

 

Do you mean no healing spells because Recovery will heal Stamina, not HP?

 

I started to think about the distinction between these as the distinction between temporary constitution damage and Hit point damage in DnD.

Again I see where they are going with this, and what led them to this. It makes perfect sense in that Hit Points in DnD are problematic. I would argue that what hit points allege to represent is the character's endurance in a fight, rather than truly reflect fleshy, bloody damage inflicted.

Just as I tend to think of an "attack" being a series of hits/parries/deflections etc., one or more of which may land a blow.

 

Priests I assume will heal hit points at later levels, but it would be comparable to higher level spells in DnD which restore negative levels etc.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

^  thanks, that's a bit more appealing.  While I think its unlikely that we will get that much flexibility in class customization to allow for sub-classes or kits, I'm hoping that we get at least enough flexibility to make variations .  If the bones of a system like what you're describing is put into place, then i think Obsidian and build on it in future games.  That would be fine with me. 

 

It would be nice to see PoE go the way BG did with kits in BG2. Here's hoping the sequel for PoE goes the same way too. Then we can have PE tutu bring kits back into PoE. 

 

I'm getting way ahead of myself.

[Ailantan]

The Mob Rulers (wizards and druids) for me.

[Monte Carlo]

 

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.

 

 

Not quite. I learnt on OD&D and 1st Edition and vanilla 3E is IMO the best iteration of the ruleset, before it got killed by splat-books.

 

The Rogue idea isn't my cup of tea, as others have said the word 'Rogue' isn't evocative of 'Brute Fighter' but that's just me. The whole point of a rogue in my mind is a flexible class that allows you to use skills to forge the type of rogue you want to play (swashbuckling dandy through to traps / MacGuyver dude / Ninja stealth monkey) not the DPS tank Sawyer wants you to play. I do like the special move that allows you to swap places with an enemy... if the tactical engine works right that could be fun.

 

Video killed the tabletop game and all that.

 

The Ranger looks interesting, but as others have said archer-with-pet is slightly MMO and again the class concept is fixed. Where did my tank-ranger go? My stealth-ranger? As the other guy said, my lost-a-pet-now-I-use-a-musket ranger. People like messing around with classes and going against the grain. Where is the scope for that here?

 

Again we are playing the class Sawyer wants us to play, the archetypes look too rigid. If I'm being unfair am happy to be corrected but I'm not seeing a load of class flexibility here.

 

My favourite classes, melee fighters, are now mob-crushers.

 

FWIW I am implacably hostile to 4E and MMO type systems. I didn't back a game based on the original infinity engine series to play one.

 

Please dissuade me otherwise.

[Nihiliste]

I hope the rangers are well designed and useful.  Always want to play one but find they're not that practical or interesting as a primary character in many games.

[Ferrante]

This is the first update I really dislike. I dont know why people who backed PE is not worried right now. Probably we all have our hopes and trust in the Obsidian Team. I like them. They have show us good stuff in these months, but today... well, I am seeing too much combat around here. Cipher, Rogue (assassin) and Ranger abilities known are all about combat. Some of us could say this is because they are not talking yet about non-combat abilities, but 10 for rogue and 10 for ranger let us too small space. 7 for Cipher and it is called a "hitter" too. Even when D&D rules were too complexes and useless sometimes (I played pen and paper role),  there were 2 important design aspects about D&D that helped in its success: 1. Not every class must be good in combat. You could help your team to battle by healing, protecting or so, but in a 1v1 fight you were lost. Today players would call that a "support" role. 2. Non-combat abilities make the "role" part far more interesting. In there, those "weak" characters shined. 

Which character will be more "role" oriented? Probably not Barbarian, Fighter, Monk or Paladin. So Chanter, priest, wizard and druid are our last hopes in this combat world. Good luck for them, they will need it. 

[Azmodan]

IndiraLightfoot said:

Well spotted, Hiro!

Like KaineParker, I much prefer the 3rd ed of D&D, well for PnP especially, but for CRPGs too, I reckon. But for a CRPG, many of the mechanics we see in the 4th ed do fit very nicely this kind of CRPG system proposed here for PE. Hopefully, the roles won't be as clearcut, though, but I hope for the same char development diversity as well, then.

 

 

All hail 3E! We are unworthy...

 

I believe it had already been argued to death on WotC forums re:4E being inspired by games such as WoW as well as table-top miniatures, rather than traditional PnP.

 

Frankly, I don't care whether or if Obsidian looks to 4E / Miniatures / WoW / Chess / Pong etc. for inspiration in regard to mechanics. I'll play the alpha and provide feedback and form a final judgement on release. The reason I didn't bother converting to 4E, is not so much due to the alterations in mechanics, but because WotC molested Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and the Planes with a retarding agent (I don't believe in 3E treatment of Planes either - there is Planescape, all else is heresy).

 

I like what Obsidian is doing with their Campaign Setting (from the little I've seen), so I'm willing to support their experiments until Alpha. And if something doesn't work, I have faith that Obsidian will re-assess and improve prior to release as often as necessary.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Azmodan

[Jajo]

It also applies to any target the rogue strikes with a weapon within the first 2 seconds of combat starting.

 

And here's a sort of an answer to my question about backstabbing.

 

 

It seems like I say this every time, but I really like the environment.

It looks like there's a bug in this one, though. There's a solitary floating rock in the center of the left edge of the screenshot - just left of the circular building.

[Monte Carlo]

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

[tajerio]

The Ranger looks interesting, but as others have said archer-with-pet is slightly MMO and again the class concept is fixed. Where did my tank-ranger go? My stealth-ranger? As the other guy said, my lost-a-pet-now-I-use-a-musket ranger. People like messing around with classes and going against the grain. Where is the scope for that here?

 

Again we are playing the class Sawyer wants us to play, the archetypes look too rigid. If I'm being unfair am happy to be corrected but I'm not seeing a load of class flexibility here.

 

My favourite classes, melee fighters, are now mob-crushers.

 

FWIW I am implacably hostile to 4E and MMO type systems. I didn't back a game based on the original infinity engine series to play one.

 

Please dissuade me otherwise.

 

 

I sympathize with the sentiment here.  I think the design as laid out here is very interesting and does some cool stuff.  But it appears as though the ranger's locked into ranged fighting and the rogue into melee.  And as you say, I don't see the route for the characters to get outside their prescribed role.  The variation does all seem to be within the role, rather than between  roles.  Here's hoping that some of the later paired updates show us some more flexibility.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I've been pondering some more over this PE beastmaster ranger and her/his close bond with his/her animal companion. And more and more I'm leaning towards rolling a ranger without such a companion after all (if it's even possible). Why? Well, let's see...

 

Scenario: Indira, the fearless ranger, and her faithful companion Measles the Weasel is lying in wait. The evil warlord Fingerwhack is approaching with his minions, the Reapers of the Innocent. She's just about to shoot an arrow straight in the face of that vile sadist when the following inner dialogue occurs between her and Measles:

*Soon I'll let this arrow fly, my friend.*

*Scent of a female on this bush here*

*Wait, first I have to let go of this arrow, and then we have a difficult fight before us.*

*I'm hungry*

*Sigh. Not now, we have more important things to do, like slaying those fiends down there on that path.*

*My anal glands are itching. I got to scrape my butt against this root...*

*I dont' care. Focus now.*

*Oh no! I got to go, my whiff-whiff is coming out fast*

*Plug that hole or something. That awful smell will get the attention of those wardogs down there in no-time.*

*But I have to go, I can't help it*

*Before I let go of the arrow now, run!*

*Aaahh...*

*No. I said "run", not "runs"*

BARK, BARK!!! Wardogs come scrambling up the hill. Indira picks up a stinky weasel and bolts through the woods, steaming with fury.

 

There are many twangs disrupted by animal companions this way, so I'd say ranged weapon practise and animal companions don't go well together, nor does combat where this kind of concentration is needed. Give us an animal-free ranger!

Edited January 29, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Silent Winter]

The Ranger looks interesting, but as others have said archer-with-pet is slightly MMO and again the class concept is fixed. Where did my tank-ranger go? My stealth-ranger? As the other guy said, my lost-a-pet-now-I-use-a-musket ranger. People like messing around with classes and going against the grain. Where is the scope for that here?

 

Well 'Stealth Ranger' is in there by default (Rangers, like Rogues, get a bonus to stealth).  I agree that it should be possible to take an animal-less ranger in return for a different bonus.  And being able to use melee weapons well enough.  Not sure I'd consider a Ranger to be a tank - more like a 'dance around the battlefield' melee type - perhaps a bonus (or a feat)  to disengaging (though I guess the Rogue's got the 'swap places' role).

Josh has said that there'll be scope to play variations on the classes so hopefully, even if not the most optimal build, there'll be room to make the characters we want.

I'll wait and see what we get in the final game  (but give the devs a friendly reminder in the meantime to keep a thought to class-build-variety)

 

Edit: Though some of this seems to be down to semantics - if I want to play a tank then why not a fighter?  How would a ranger-tank vary (other than in name)?  (honest question).

Or is it wanting to combine the elements of 'animal-companion' plus 'tank' or 'dual-wielding fighter' with 'wilderness tracking'?

 

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

Edér is the renamed Edair

Edited January 29, 2014 by Silent Winter