Too combat-focused?

[Lephys]

It's all semantics on the class differences outside of combat issue.

 

Regardless of how it's represented (skills, abilities, simple class-based dialogue options, etc.), the point there is, it's nice to have unique distinctions between the classes, as represented by their ability to function in and interact with the world around them.

 

It's just like combat. If a Wizard and Fighter just did the same things in combat, who would care which you chose? But they don't. A Wizard friggin' hurls magic around, and does lots of things the Fighter simply cannot do. "I want that circle to erupt in flames!" Too bad... you're not a Wizard. You can probably DAMAGE that circle of peeps with some physical attack, but you cannot, from a distance, cause it to erupt in flames. One part of that is the sheer fact that it's a unique distinction between the abilities of the two classes.

 

The same goes for out-of-combat stuff. Now, obviously, you might have 100 Wizard spells for combat, and not have quite that variety of options for out-of-combat interactions and such. But, still. The principle is the same. If I'm a Wizard, it'd be REALLY nice to come upon some quest scenario involving a Grimoire, and get to go "Oh hey! I'm a Wizard! Guys, I USE grimoires!", and pick something spiffy that changes the way the scenario is able to be played out, as opposed to not having a Wizard in your group and just scratching your head, wondering what to do about this grimoire. Instead of "Oh, all the game's going to check is whether or not you've got 50 points in the Grimoires skill, which ANYONE can take, 8D!"

 

That sort of thing.

 

Also, a quick final note, regarding class's effect on dialogue... I don't think your class should just inherently dictate how you speak or what you talk about. Like... A Druid shouldn't just have all-Druid dialogue lines, while a Priest has all Priest ones. But, I definitely think that factors unique to your class should interact with the dialogue/event system and affect what options are available to you, whether or not they're implemented as 1-100, put-your-points-in-when-you-level-up skills.

 

In another thread, I referenced Etiquettes from Shadowrun, because they're a very simple example of this. You either have an etiquette, or you don't, and it applies to a number of situations in different ways. It's like a knowledge skill, sort of, only you don't have more or fewer points in it. You can even stack that with stat checks. Want to talk your way into this Wizard society? Maybe you need the Wizard Class "etiquette" AND a Resolve of 13 or above.

 

Basically, your unique class knowledge would unlock the sheer option in the first place, but wouldn't automatically make you succeed at it (it wouldn't just have to be a class check, then success or failure.) Your success or failure would still depend upon a relevant stat check.

[rjshae]

 

 It doesn't look like you're a backer, so why worry? Wait to read the reviews and see if the game sounds to your liking.

 

wow. low blow. people can have reservations without being a backer. in case you are worried about my backer status, i am a backer.

 

No, that wasn't intended as a low blow and I wasn't concerned about your backer status. It was applied logic.

[agris]

Outside of thieves (rangers and bards a little) skills weren't a focus of the IE games until IWD2.  Specifically, if you weren't playing those classes, you didn't even have skills.  And in IWD2, a lot of them wound up feeling redundant or useless.  If our options are to include a huge number of skills to make characters feel diverse (without making good use of them) or to have a small number of skills with heavier use and less per-character diversity, I think it's better to go with the latter.

Also, didn't one of the team members state you will use ability checks in places where one might imagine a skill check? Rather than a Diplomacy skill, check the Charisma attribute, etc.. this gives you non-combat character build differentiation without skill bloat.

[JFSOCC]

 

It has also been announced that there are four types of skills: learning skills, travelling skills, item skills, and companion skills. Again, little information on specifics so far, but we at least know that there are likely to be a few skills in the game.

 

There are not many, honestly.  We'd rather have a small number of skills that get a good amount of use than include a bunch of skills that wind up neglected.

 

I'm rather disappointed by that. I'm one of those who never played any of the IE games for the combat, which I found more or less tedious. (which is why I skipped Icewind Dale, which appeared to me to be more of a dungeon crawler than role-playing experience.)

 

Earlier you made the argument players could miss out on a lot of content if they were forced to play "the dialogue game"

 

Is that necessarily a bad thing? I know I'm not going to experience everything in one playthrough, that makes it all the more interesting for me to replay the game.

 

Can you at least tell us about how many skills we can expect, and the frequency with which we're likely to (be able to) use them?

Can one full party master all skills, or will you always be missing out on some? How many skills can a character feasibly master of the total pool?

If my PC lacks a skill, but a companion npc has it, will their skill be usable or ignored in dialogue?

[Endrosz]

I'm rather disappointed by that. I'm one of those who never played any of the IE games for the combat, which I found more or less tedious. (which is why I skipped Icewind Dale, which appeared to me to be more of a dungeon crawler than role-playing experience.)

 

Okay, IIRC, your skills in BG and BG2 are the following: the thief skills and lore. Discounting lore, which wasn't a very interesting skill there anyway, only thieves, bards, and rangers had any skills. Rangers had only the 2 stealth skills.

 

Are you saying you played the game for those classes/skills alone? Fighters, clerics and wizards were padding in your party to somehow get through combat? It's completely valid if you say yes, you play however you want to play, I'm just asking because it sounds rather odd to me.

[JFSOCC]

Well I did mostly play thief, but it's true I found the number of skills lacking in all of those games. However, it was made up some by the dialogue trees and interesting quests of those games.

 

And I never liked to use wizards, because as Josh mentioned earlier, they could do everything my thief could do but more reliably and cheaply. I really didn't enjoy playing with wizards, still don't.

[Lephys]

I forgot about Talents. They could potentially check Talents, too. That could be interesting.

 

Regardless, just because they don't have 73 skills in the game doesn't mean they can't have a great deal of depth to the non-combat-oriented usage/application of said skills.

 

Also, I'm totally on-board for some level of the multi-person skill checks. Maybe sometimes, convincing a given, rather skeptical person of something (for example) requires two people with high Resolve instead of one. Or sneaking into a place via a particular window/entrance might require TWO sneaky people, etc, simply because one cannot get in alone, and the other needs to also remain undetected whilst helping them (think Splinter Cell co-op, heh).

 

Note: I realize Resolve is not a skill, but a stat. The check functions the same way, so I used it as an example.

[bronzepoem]

 

Oh, yeah, and it is true that non-combat skills are largely class-agnostic. Class mostly determines how you fight rather than who you are.

 

 

Yes.  We have previously given details about our skill system, including how Stealth works.  As a recap, all characters can invest in the Stealth skill, though certain classes (like rogues) have a head start in that department.  You can have characters sneak individually or as a group and the gameplay consists of navigating the Stealth-based radii of your party members around the detection radii of potential enemies.  Enemies have two stages to discovering a sneaking character.  The first causes them to investigate.  Once they get close enough (IF they get close enough), they will fully realize the threat and typically start combat (sometimes dialogue).  In both of our class pair updates (rogues + rangers, wizards + druids), we've called out what non-combat skills each class emphasizes, but yes, the skills are largely class-neutral.

 

Dialogue options are also largely class-neutral.  Most threshold-based options are opened up based on the character's attributes -- using Perception to notice something, Resolve to threaten someone with scary intensity, Strength to intimidate someone with brute force (or just to smack them around a little), Dexterity to swipe something, etc.  Picking these options is not always a path to success, but the attributes are what open them up.  The same applies to class-, race-, sex-, or background-based options that pop up.  We decided to avoid dialogue skills since it pushes characters to invest in "the dialogue game" or miss out on a ton of enjoyable content.  By using as many basic elements of the character as we can to shape dialogue, we keep dialogue open to all sorts of characters, from meat-head fighters to sassy wizards and everything in-between.  Attribute-based checks worked well in Planescape: Torment and we think it will work well in PoE as well.

How about pocket picking? I can't imagine a paladin or priest who picks pockets.

[Silent Winter]

 

How about pocket picking? I can't imagine a paladin or priest who picks pockets.

 

I *think* pick-pocketing is part of the 'mechanics' skill - but it only comes up in scripted-interactions (you can't use it like in BG) - so maybe Paladins won't get the option in those interactions.  (Josh mentioned in the video that sometimes you'll get different choices based on your class, attributes and equipment).

[bronzepoem]

 

 

How about pocket picking? I can't imagine a paladin or priest who picks pockets.

 

I *think* pick-pocketing is part of the 'mechanics' skill - but it only comes up in scripted-interactions (you can't use it like in BG) - so maybe Paladins won't get the option in those interactions.  (Josh mentioned in the video that sometimes you'll get different choices based on your class, attributes and equipment).

 

 

Oh,no! I super unlike this idea. Of course a rouge can pick anyone he like to pick.

I have a idea:set a key word"Faith"in disposition system.If a paladin use pocketpicking,the "Faith point" will decrease.After several times pocketpicking ,NPC will react him as a fallen paladin.

 

 

[anameforobsidian]

 

How about pocket picking? I can't imagine a paladin or priest who picks pockets.

 

 

What about about a paladin of Stealzo, the god of thieves?

[bronzepoem]

 

 

How about pocket picking? I can't imagine a paladin or priest who picks pockets.

 

 

What about about a paladin of Stealzo, the god of thieves?

 

 

Yes,that could be.

But compare with that,I'm much worry now about a rouge who can't pocketpick on street! By the way, we didn't see the pocketpicking button on UI! Come on, they will give me that, won't they?

[Leferd]

Pickpocketing will not occur in regular gameplay; but either through dialogue or scripted interactions against a dexterity check.

[bronzepoem]

Pickpocketing will not occur in regular gameplay; but either through dialogue or scripted interactions against a dexterity check.

HEART BREAKER!Every old-school RPG have pocketpicking,EVERY!    

Next time I won't throw 1000 bucks anymoreT_T

[Leferd]

I never thought Pickpocketing was such a big deal, and more or less a time wasting novelty when you consider utility vis a vis risk/reward. If one of the options to attain a plot critical item is to use some form of thievery, might as well do it through a scripted interaction, rather than the awkward pickpocket mechanic from the IE games.

[bronzepoem]

I never thought Pickpocketing was such a big deal, and more or less a time wasting novelty when you consider utility vis a vis risk/reward. If one of the options to attain a plot critical item is to use some form of thievery, might as well do it through a scripted interaction, rather than the awkward pickpocket mechanic from the IE games.

 

But it was such a classic RPG element.I never imagine we will lose it.I still remember the moment I stole the scimitar from Drizzt.

It is so funny, when you meet a rich wizard on street,then follow him and try to steal his grimoire.Or sneak into the battlefield,to steal enemy's potions, even alternate weapons.

A rouge couldn't pickpocketing could only be called "light fighter". If they just design several “Pickpocketing dialogues”，the feeling of freely exploration will be totally lost.

Although the dialogue system in PST was good, We can't deal everything by it.Otherwise it will become a Japanese Gal game.Please use the expressive force of 2D engine itself.It worked so perfectly in Fallout and Arcanum.Now shouldn't we dig more potential of it? 

 

Alright. Just let me get away and cry for a while...  

 

Edited July 28, 2014 by bronzepoem

[Silent Winter]

^quite a few of us wanted a more BG-style pick-pocketing, if only to roleplay the thievey rogue a bit more - but alas, it's not to be.

Hopefully the situations where it does come up won't simply be once or twice in the whole game.

[bronzepoem]

^quite a few of us wanted a more BG-style pick-pocketing, if only to roleplay the thievey rogue a bit more - but alas, it's not to be.

Hopefully the situations where it does come up won't simply be once or twice in the whole game.

 

No matter how many times they put "thievey dialogue" in, The feeling of free exploration has already lost.

PST was great for it's great story,not for its basic system. Yes, using text to show C&C is a good way. But not the best way, and of course shouldn't be the only way. 

Those genius did so wonderful jobs in Fallout & Arcanum. I thought they would keep the valuable experiences in PoE...

Edited July 28, 2014 by bronzepoem

[PrimeJunta]

This is a very strange thread.

[archangel979]

WL2 will not have pickpocketing (or most rogue skills) and it is a poorer game for it. If it is true that PoE will not have BG version of it, I am very sad

Edited July 28, 2014 by archangel979

[bronzepoem]

I never thought Pickpocketing was such a big deal, and more or less a time wasting novelty when you consider utility vis a vis risk/reward. If one of the options to attain a plot critical item is to use some form of thievery, might as well do it through a scripted interaction, rather than the awkward pickpocket mechanic from the IE games.

In fact,there is a huge different between scripted interaction and IE mechanic.

 

IE mechanic is a open way, you can pickpocket anyone you like.That's a free exploring procession.You choice target yourself,maybe the super-armed one,maybe the guy wear luxurious clothes,or someone who lived in the beautiful house,or just that green shirt girl  coordinate with the day and night circle,and sneak skill.Whole the stealing procession chould be very chanllenging. With a good reward design,it will support great sense of achievement.

Second, pickpocketing could become part of combat. Like I said, you can sneak into battlefield to steal enemy's potions or alternate weapon. That could be a very strategic support to combat skill. 

 

In  scripted interaction,  when you meet a issue, dialogue tell you:Come on, steal this guy. Then you make an one second attribute check or skill check. Done.

One hundred times boring than IE mechanic way!

 

Scripted interaction is just suitable to describe the content which can't be showed by IE mechanic.Like combat, scripted interaction can describe combat too. Why do we need real combat! 

Edited July 28, 2014 by bronzepoem

[Zinnwaldite]

Luckily this won't affect me much at all. The only games where i've used pickpocketing is the fallout games to plant nades on people.

[bronzepoem]

 

To be fair I think any spiritual follow up invoking the names of BG, IWD and Torment has to have a fair bit of melee, and that was a large atrraction for two of those series for me personally, the strike and counter strike of BG2 and the more balanced and gnarly feel of IWD. 

 

And it was something I've tried to consistently call out as one of our three foci for the project: exploration of beautiful environments, a reactive story with equally reactive companions, and party-based tactical combat.

 

From the information we get now, exploration is the one I most worry about.

[Lychnidos]

 

 

Oh, yeah, and it is true that non-combat skills are largely class-agnostic. Class mostly determines how you fight rather than who you are.

 

Yes.  We have previously given details about our skill system, including how Stealth works.  As a recap, all characters can invest in the Stealth skill, though certain classes (like rogues) have a head start in that department.  You can have characters sneak individually or as a group and the gameplay consists of navigating the Stealth-based radii of your party members around the detection radii of potential enemies.  Enemies have two stages to discovering a sneaking character.  The first causes them to investigate.  Once they get close enough (IF they get close enough), they will fully realize the threat and typically start combat (sometimes dialogue).  In both of our class pair updates (rogues + rangers, wizards + druids), we've called out what non-combat skills each class emphasizes, but yes, the skills are largely class-neutral.

 

Dialogue options are also largely class-neutral.  Most threshold-based options are opened up based on the character's attributes -- using Perception to notice something, Resolve to threaten someone with scary intensity, Strength to intimidate someone with brute force (or just to smack them around a little), Dexterity to swipe something, etc.  Picking these options is not always a path to success, but the attributes are what open them up.  The same applies to class-, race-, sex-, or background-based options that pop up.  We decided to avoid dialogue skills since it pushes characters to invest in "the dialogue game" or miss out on a ton of enjoyable content.  By using as many basic elements of the character as we can to shape dialogue, we keep dialogue open to all sorts of characters, from meat-head fighters to sassy wizards and everything in-between.  Attribute-based checks worked well in Planescape: Torment and we think it will work well in PoE as well.

How about pocket picking? I can't imagine a paladin or priest who picks pockets.

 

 

You just haven't met the right priests.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Lychnidos