Paladins and stats

[Judicator]

Hi, I've been following Eternity since it's kickstarter, and it looks fantastic so far. I have a couple of questions about the game.
First, how combat effective will Paladins be? I get that they have a bunch of abilities geared towards buffing their allies, but how good will they be at fighting monsters? Are they going to be like DnD Paladins where they can compete with other warriors like Fighters or Barbarians?
My second question is about the attributes. Is it going to be like in Baldur's Gate where you roll your stats at the begining and they stay like that way until the end (not counting the usage of things like tomes) or is it going to be like Dragon Age where you get stat increases every level? I'd prefer the first option, there's something very satisfying about rerolling.

[khalil]

The stats are going to be point buy.

I've got no clue about pallies or increases though.

[Judicator]

Too bad, I hate how every character has the exact same potential with that system. It was great how you could make some really gifted characters in BG.

[khalil]

I hated that, oddly enough. If you get to roll stats, the optimal approach is to reroll until you get all 18s. That's boring, and it gives me an absurdly unfair advantage.

[Tamerlane]

Paladins are being designed as front-line leader-type dudes. They can certainly fight, but they don't deal or absorb damage like fighters, rogues, rangers, etc.

 

Stat increases will be minimal but I have no damn idea where I read that.

 

EDIT: Also, burn all rolling stats forever.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Tamerlane

[Lephys]

EDIT: Also, burn all rolling stats forever.

But a rolling stat catches no moss. You don't want mossy stats, do you? o_o

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

PoE Paladins are similar in concept to DnD Paladins, in that they are warriors with special defenses and have auras.

 

Stats are point-buy, as they should be.

[ManifestedISO]

The wiki has a surprising amount of info. Flames of Devotion and Sworn Enemy are my favorite, so far. And the fact I can be an unlawful not-good paladin. 

[Silent Winter]

 

EDIT: Also, burn all rolling stats forever.

But a rolling stat catches no moss. You don't want mossy stats, do you? o_o

 

Why not?   They'll provide a bonus to camouflage

[Judicator]

The wiki has a surprising amount of info. Flames of Devotion and Sworn Enemy are my favorite, so far. And the fact I can be an unlawful not-good paladin. 

Yeah, I've seen the wiki. Good stuff. I really like the idea of making the Paladin devoted to a certain ideal/cause instead of being just a holy warrior. I also like being at the front of a battle swinging my sword into somebody's face so I would be pretty disappointed if I Paladins turnout to be completely out-performed by the other warriors.

 

I'm surprised to see all the hate for stat rolling, point-buy never made any sense to me. It makes all characters somehow born equal and identical even though in real life we know some people are simply more gifted than others. I guess ideally they could make the system like in Temple of Elemental Evil where you can choose between rolling or point-buy.

[Infinitron]

Games aren't real life.

[Randomthom]

Personally, if a game doesn't allow me to roll stats (e.g. IWD2) then I'll kick up excel and generate my own rolls then apply with Dalekeeper or the cheat console.

 

I like rolling and I agree, I like the notion that not all people are equally gifted.

[Judicator]

Personally, if a game doesn't allow me to roll stats (e.g. IWD2) then I'll kick up excel and generate my own rolls then apply with Dalekeeper or the cheat console.

 

I like rolling and I agree, I like the notion that not all people are equally gifted.

Exactly. There's just something really satisfying about re-rolling for an hour and finally getting the stats you wanted. That and rubbing them in Sarevok's face.

[khalil]

 

Personally, if a game doesn't allow me to roll stats (e.g. IWD2) then I'll kick up excel and generate my own rolls then apply with Dalekeeper or the cheat console.

 

I like rolling and I agree, I like the notion that not all people are equally gifted.

Exactly. There's just something really satisfying about re-rolling for an hour and finally getting the stats you wanted. That and rubbing them in Sarevok's face.

 

I find that to be annoying as hell.

[Randomthom]

In a cRPG I'd agree, it usually means a lot of re-rolling.

 

In old PnP I used to love playing flawed characters. A bad set of stats could make for a very interesting character.

 

There was Fingolfin, my Elven Fighter/Rogue/Deepwood Sniper with a con score of 5. At level 22 (3.5 ed rules) he nearly killed a great wyrm red dragon in 2 rounds but he was the epitome of the term glass cannon.

There was Gnurk, my half-orc Fighter/Barbarian who was responsible for more player kills than any NPC (Vampires with Dominate can be such a pita) thanks to a low wisdom (and int) score. He was a hit with the ladies though!

 

In cRPGs it's not quite as fun to have a weak character because essentially it's a game that you're trying to beat whereas PnP RPG is different (unless you play with a bunch of powergamers).

[Jarrakul]

I would assume that the paladin is going to be perfectly respectable in combat. Not as good a tank as the warrior, or as good a damage-dealer as the rogue, but he'll also buff everyone around him. Which actually sounds awesome to me, but then I play melee bards.

 

As for stats, I'm not a fan of rolling... ever. I like it better in PnP, where it's possible to get a bad roll and you just have to stick with it. In CRPGs, you just keep rolling until you're amazing, which kind of defeats the point, imo. But even in PnP, I find its main effect is to render me unable to play the character I want to play. I'm a pretty hardcore roleplayer. I come to the table with a character concept in mind. I then work within the rules to make that character come to life as best I can. Rolling for stats has disrupted my efforts more often than any quirk of the rules or uncooperative GM. So I hope you'll understand when I say I'm not exactly a fan.

[Helz]

 

Personally, if a game doesn't allow me to roll stats (e.g. IWD2) then I'll kick up excel and generate my own rolls then apply with Dalekeeper or the cheat console.

 

I like rolling and I agree, I like the notion that not all people are equally gifted.

Exactly. There's just something really satisfying about re-rolling for an hour and finally getting the stats you wanted. That and rubbing them in Sarevok's face.

 

 

You want rolling because its more realistic, but then you just roll for an hour until you get the stats you want anyway.  A perfect illustration of why rolling is pointless. 

 

I do hope that your beginning stats remain pretty much unchanged for the whole game though.  That makes character creation a lot more meaningful.

[Sarex]

Tricky question to answer. The thing we don't know is were the other classes are damage wise. What we found out so far is that only rogues and ranges do any real damage. The fighters are tanks and I guess the Paladin is a support aura class. So yes while they may do the same damage as fighters, that again may not tell us much because so far as we know damage isn't the primary role of the fighter.

 

That is the only thing I really dislike so far about the classes. I'm fine with rogues being spike damage dealers, but I would have liked for the fighters/barbarians/paladins to have a more consistent damage output, that is higher then rogues regular attacks.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Sarex

[Tamerlane]

Tricky question to answer. The thing we don't know is were the other classes are damage wise. What we found out so far is that only rogues and ranges do any real damage.

Hey I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing they said. They said that rogues and rangers are the best damage dealers, that's all.

[Sarex]

Hey I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing they said. They said that rogues and rangers are the best damage dealers, that's all.

 

We talked about this indepth in other threads, this is the info we know so far. I never said it was 100% confirmed, but it was implied a couple of times by Sawyer when we talked about it. Fighters are tanks with taunt, Barbarians are AoE, and Paladins are buffers.

[Judicator]

 

 

Personally, if a game doesn't allow me to roll stats (e.g. IWD2) then I'll kick up excel and generate my own rolls then apply with Dalekeeper or the cheat console.

 

I like rolling and I agree, I like the notion that not all people are equally gifted.

Exactly. There's just something really satisfying about re-rolling for an hour and finally getting the stats you wanted. That and rubbing them in Sarevok's face.

 

 

You want rolling because its more realistic, but then you just roll for an hour until you get the stats you want anyway.  A perfect illustration of why rolling is pointless. 

 

I do hope that your beginning stats remain pretty much unchanged for the whole game though.  That makes character creation a lot more meaningful.

 

When I say realistic I mean that not all people are born equal, some are simply stronger, or faster, or smarter, or whatever. I enjoy re-rolling because I want my characters to be as good as possible. I'm a big proponent of self-improvement in what ever way possible, to be best I can be. The chars I usually play share that characteristic.

I agree that stats shouldn't change, it gives them more weight. IMO the best option would be to have both a point-buy system and a rolling system like in ToEE.

 

 

Hey I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing they said. They said that rogues and rangers are the best damage dealers, that's all.

 

We talked about this indepth in other threads, this is the info we know so far. I never said it was 100% confirmed, but it was implied a couple of times by Sawyer when we talked about it. Fighters are tanks with taunt, Barbarians are AoE, and Paladins are buffers.

 

My interpretation is that Fighters are defensive chars while Barbarians are all about pure aggression and AoE melee attacks like two-handed warriors in Dragon Age II. Paladins act as leaders and buffers. What I don't know is do they have the same attack bonuses and health that Fighters have. I'm not even sure if Eternity has different Base Attack bonuses for different classes like DnD.

[Prometheus]

 

Hey I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing they said. They said that rogues and rangers are the best damage dealers, that's all.

 

We talked about this indepth in other threads, this is the info we know so far. I never said it was 100% confirmed, but it was implied a couple of times by Sawyer when we talked about it.

 

No it wasn't implied, they said that rogues and rangers are the best single target damage dealer not that they are the only one that deal "real" single target damage. see quote below:

 

Paladins have flagged behind other melee classes in raw damage output in every edition of A/D&D.  In 1st and 2nd Ed., the only core damage-based bonus they had was from using a Holy Sword.  In the BG/IWD games, they could specialize, but they couldn't gain mastery+.  Even their BG2 kits only have conditional attack/damage bonuses.  The rest of their class abilities are mostly passive defensive bonuses or support effects (Lay on Hands, Cure Disease, etc.).

 

You seem to be equating "not top-tier damage dealer" with hitting like a limp noodle.  This isn't the case at all, just as is wasn't in the BG/IWD games.

A paladin is always a good supporter, but you can build a more offensive paladin through talents. This paladin will not be as good as a rogue with single target damage, but he stll has good support abillities that the rogue doesn't have.

Edited March 20, 2014 by Prometheus

[Lephys]

 

Tricky question to answer. The thing we don't know is were the other classes are damage wise. What we found out so far is that only rogues and ranges do any real damage.

Hey I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing they said. They said that rogues and rangers are the best damage dealers, that's all.

 

Seconded, so hard...

 

People don't seem to realize the nature of comparison:

 

If you build a Rogue or Ranger, then any other character will do lower damage, relative to the amount of single-target damage potential the Ranger or Rogue will have.

 

You could still build a Ranger that's like, as supporty and non-damagey of a Ranger as you can get, and a... I dunno, Paladin, who's as focused on damage as he can possibly be, and that Paladin is going to outdamage that Ranger.

 

If you roll one of every single character, and build them to be as damagey as possible, your Ranger and Rogue are going to be at the top of the charts. Doesn't mean everyone else is at the bottom of the charts, or that they don't do any damage in regard to being capable of felling enemies.

[Judicator]

 

 

Hey I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing they said. They said that rogues and rangers are the best damage dealers, that's all.

 

We talked about this indepth in other threads, this is the info we know so far. I never said it was 100% confirmed, but it was implied a couple of times by Sawyer when we talked about it.

 

No it wasn't implied, they said that rogues and rangers are the best single target damage dealer not that they are the only one that deal "real" single target damage. see quote below:

 

Paladins have flagged behind other melee classes in raw damage output in every edition of A/D&D.  In 1st and 2nd Ed., the only core damage-based bonus they had was from using a Holy Sword.  In the BG/IWD games, they could specialize, but they couldn't gain mastery+.  Even their BG2 kits only have conditional attack/damage bonuses.  The rest of their class abilities are mostly passive defensive bonuses or support effects (Lay on Hands, Cure Disease, etc.).

 

You seem to be equating "not top-tier damage dealer" with hitting like a limp noodle.  This isn't the case at all, just as is wasn't in the BG/IWD games.

A paladin is always a good supporter, but you can build a more offensive paladin through talents. This paladin will not be as good as a rogue with single target damage, but he stll has good support abillities that the rogue doesn't have.

 

If Eternity Paladins are similar to their BG counterparts then I'm happy. They were perfectly capable in combat and had some of the best kits in the game.

[Sarex]

The primary role of Fighters in BG and IWD was damage, now it's tanking and taunting. Damage isn't their primary role. I never said they weren't going to do any damage, but compared to the Fighters in BG/IWD they simply don't fill the same role. That is why I said it's tricky to compare.

 

 

 

 

Tricky question to answer. The thing we don't know is were the other classes are damage wise. What we found out so far is that only rogues and ranges do any real damage.

Hey I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing they said. They said that rogues and rangers are the best damage dealers, that's all.

 

Seconded, so hard...

People don't seem to realize the nature of comparison:

If you build a Rogue or Ranger, then any other character will do lower damage, relative to the amount of single-target damage potential the Ranger or Rogue will have.

You could still build a Ranger that's like, as supporty and non-damagey of a Ranger as you can get, and a... I dunno, Paladin, who's as focused on damage as he can possibly be, and that Paladin is going to outdamage that Ranger.

If you roll one of every single character, and build them to be as damagey as possible, your Ranger and Rogue are going to be at the top of the charts. Doesn't mean everyone else is at the bottom of the charts, or that they don't do any damage in regard to being capable of felling enemies.

 

That's precisely it. Rangers and Rogues now fill the role of the BG/IWD Fighter. While Paladins may do the same damage as the fighter, that isn't saying much because the Fighter him self doesn't do the damage he did in BG/IWD. If we then translate that to "will the Paladin do the same amount of damage as the current damage dealing classes in PoE (Rogue/Ranger)" then the answer is no.