How does PoE innovate?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I don't play D&D4, but only briefly checking fighter I can see he has an ability to stun, gain hit points when getting hit etc.

Even if what you say is true, what it has to do with PoE? Obsidian stated that they don't want to do overpowered builds.

 

 

PoE is taking a lot from systems like 4th ed. They're taking the roles of DPS, Defender, Leader and Controller which is the same as 4th ed. A DPS character should be doing more damage than a controller (Wizard) or Defender (Fighter). That's why they call them the heavy hitters in the PoE updates. If they're not doing the damage, then they're not fulfilling their role. And I wouldn't necessarily call them OP compared to every class because other classes have different roles. But in terms of damage output, then they do have it over classes like Fighters, Druids, Clerics, and in a lot of respects Wizards. And PoE is taking things like encounter and daily powers.

 

Also, the Fighter has to hit and the Rogue has immediate interrupts like Swift Parry that can cause the Fighter to miss. The Rogue has really good defences with AC and especially with Reflex. And stun can be countered with Heroic Effort on saves if you haven't used it already or if you've taken Superior Will which is what I do with my Rogue around or just before Paragon level, as you get two saves per encounter. One save at the start and one at the end. If you save at the start, then you can keep attacking and it doesn't affect you. If you haven't used your Heroic Effort, a 6 or more on a d20 is required to save.

 

Also, the Rogue has a Stun attack (that can do sneak attack damage) as well. The Rogue can effectively stun the Fighter in the first attack and finish him off in the second attack. The Rogue's stun attack has no save so the Fighter can't do anything until the end of the Rogue's next turn. So effectively, the Rogue has two turns and can finish him off. This is an encounter power I use with my build in pnp but I didn't use it in my example because I didn't want to use OP powers. Note I said 'encounter power'? Yep, the Rogue can stun on every encounter and it's not a daily power. After the encounter, the rogue automatically gets that power back.

 

So in trying to balance the game, has PoE done the right things with their classes? We'll just have to wait and see.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Monte Carlo]

 

 

PoE is taking a lot from systems like 4th ed.

 

That'll be the 4th Ed that was the shortest lived iteration of the game, right? The one that turned droves of gamers to Pathfinder, or to sit out D&D until a better version popped out of WotC?

 

Jesus wept.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

While I like the IE games and have no problems with them or even D&D pnp (2nd ed, 4th ed, etc). I can pretty much play any system whether it's D&D, 40k, Traveller, whatever.

 

A part of me still can't reconcile how a level 8 Rogue (Thief) in 4th ed can do so much damage in my example and the Rogue can do even more than that with certain encounter/daily powers. I still get blown away by it. Especially compared to a Fighter. And when you get to Paragon.. oh boy. I was able to kill enemies (minions) without actually attacking them (Shadow Assassin's Riposte). I could run around minions, provoking opportunity attacks, they would miss and die. My Rogue had a modifier added to my AC against opportunity attacks which made it even harder to hit me. Our GM had to have the minions stand there and do nothing while I ran around them. They were like, 'nah, I'm not going to attack you'. So that put an end to that.

 

And I play 4th ed. I can understand why some people find it hard to understand how a Rogue can do more damage than other classes. I'm sure I'm going to enjoy PoE. In terms of innovation as per the thread title, I don't really see it with the classes atm. My opinion (re:innovation) may change when the game is released.

 

edit: Also, a clarification in my post above. The Rogue's Stun attack is in paragon level, which is why I lowered the Rogue down to level 8. But still, there are powers a level 8 Rogue has access to that are just as deadly.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[rjshae]

Innovation in gaming is overrated. Books don't need to be innovative in order to tell a good story.

[centurionofprix]

 

 

 

Lolwut? Baldur's Gate is widely recognized as single-handedly reviving the CRPG genre and both games were universally acclaimed for setting new standards and raising the bar.

 

 

And yet, there seems to be a lot of dislike for the game from a lot of posters on this forum. Especially BG2 and the arguments how bad it was and how it handled things. eg. spells, ruleset, no variety, etc

 

 

 

That is b/c most young people today prefer to mash a single 'attack' button, kicking arses and calling that thing a RPG.

 

 

TBH most of the criticism of Baldur's Gate comes from people with a preference for earlier games, compared to which BG is seen as a dumbing-down.

Edited April 15, 2014 by centurionofprix

[The Mist Devil]

 

PoE is taking a lot from systems like 4th ed.

 

That'll be the 4th Ed that was the shortest lived iteration of the game, right? The one that turned droves of gamers to Pathfinder, or to sit out D&D until a better version popped out of WotC?

 

Jesus wept.

 

 

Or just keep playing 3.5.

 

Doubt they'll catch me looking at the 5th version even if its apparently "better".

[tajerio]

I don't really care about the specifics of the damage that a rogue can put out in 4th edition, because that doesn't have much to do with my question about why rogues can't be as good as fighters.  But it does basically seem that the answer is "because that's how AD&D did it."  Which is fine, I guess, but it's a bit of an unexamined assumption.

 

My personal preference is for class potency in combat to vary depending on the situation and enemy capabilities, because that's a lot more interesting and challenging to my mind than "fighter is strictly better."  

[Hormalakh]

Innovation also includes the new technical aspects of map design and visual art. Dynamic lighting being done for the first time in an IE-like. Dynamic maps (water moving up and down) in a 2D map.

 

A much more robust scouting/sneaking mechanic.

The whole combat mechanic for this game is completely new. It's not 4e, 2e, AD&D - it's an amalgamation of all the best bits with a few adjustments here and there.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Zeckul]

"Lolwut? Baldur's Gate is widely recognized as single-handedly reviving the CRPG genre and both games were universally acclaimed for setting new standards and raising the bar."

 

Popularity does not equal innovative.

Indeed, but I didn't argue that they innovated because they were popular. I said they innovated because they set new standards. You don't set new standards by doing the same thing everyone else does.

 

At the very least, Baldur's Gate invented a real-time adaptation of D&D that was very successful and influential.

[JFSOCC]

You don't create art by playing it safe. That's all I have to say about that.

[Volourn]

"'ve never quite understood this.  Why is it that so many people insist that rogues shouldn't be as good in combat as fighters?  Is it because of the name (in which case I'd wonder why magic users get to be better than fighters)?  Is it because that's how AD&D did it?  Or is it something else?  I'm genuinely curious."

 

It has little to do with DnD.

 

 Classes are supposed to be different. If a rogue is as good as a fighter in a  fight than what's the point of a fighter? It's like if the fighter was as good as a rogue/thief/scout at opening locked doors, stealing, and sneaking then what would be the point of a rogue.

 

If you want classes to be equal in all things then perhaps a classless system is your preference. And, nothing wrong with that, because there are examples of very good classless  character systems. But, if you are going to have classes they should be different and have their own role.

 

As for why mages being more powerful than fighters.. That should be obvious - they use MAGIC. They create something out of nothing or manipulate things to create weird stuff. But, even then, mages can be beat and they are different.

 

This idea of equality  between the classes is lame. A rogue should not be a fighter and a fighter should not be a rogue. L A M E

[JFSOCC]

fighters will use the same magic as wizards, so there's no expectation that mages ought to be more powerful than fighters.

[Volourn]

 One of the weaknesses of the game. Turning fighters into mages. No need for classes.

[dyrhet]

I don't really get why people think that mages should be more powerful than warriors, or that magic should be more powerful in general. It's a really weird perspective considering that in traditional epic literature, a goodly amount of pulp and modern fantasy, wizards are typically not the heroes. They can often be side players or advisers, or they can be villains for the warrior hero to defeat. They tend to have weird powers that are, yes, exceptional, but don't make them good at everything. 

 

And then if you take the warriors in those stories, they often have some supernatural aspect to them. They're supernaturally physically gifted, or they possess some significant magical knack or whatever. This is not dissimilar from what PoE is trying here.

 

Really the tradition of wizards being an overwhelming force is restricted mostly to D&D. It doesn't "make sense" for magic to be better than sticking someone with a sword, this is just how we've traditionally gamed. Doesn't make it a good idea.

[constantine]

 

You don't have to look hard.

 

Criticism, even strong criticism, is not the same as dislike. I'm extremely critical of D&D as a system, yet I played it as my primary PnP game system for 25 years. I would not have done that if I disliked it.

 

My criticisms of BG2 in particular are strongly related. It's a great game, but also hugely flawed. That is not a contradiction in terms.

 

 

 

The important thing (and I'm certain that many agree there) is that the game tried to pull it off and that effort succeeded in more ways than those it failed.

 

 

IMO it was never the game meant for everybody and some appreciate it more than others. But THAT is where it excels the most, for me at least. Mainstream can only be so good, one has to look to expertise to get that they would enjoy the most.

[Bryy]

Innovation in gaming is overrated. Books don't need to be innovative in order to tell a good story.

Besides this being a ridiculous post, we're all using the word innovation wrong. Like it's some feature that is somehow mutually exclusive from the mechanics of the game.

 

And yes, good stories do innovate.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Bryy

[constantine]

As for an answer to the topic, I don't think PoE will 'innovate', rather than it will take the best of many worlds and stitch them up like a plastic surgeon. It will have an air of freshness, polish and quality. At least that comes up from what we are shown so far. Hopefully it won't disappoint.

[Volourn]

"but don't make them good at everything."
 

Who claims they want wizards to be good at everything'?

[rjshae]

 

Innovation in gaming is overrated. Books don't need to be innovative in order to tell a good story.

Besides this being a ridiculous post, we're all using the word innovation wrong. Like it's some feature that is somehow mutually exclusive from the mechanics of the game.

 

And yes, good stories do innovate.

 

You missed my point, and you're being a bit of a ****. Books don't need to innovate their physical form in order to communicate their story.

[ravenshrike]

I can see that Vol has found a new hunting ground.

He does have a good point, although he then manages to completely miss it when he swings(Protip: Rogues are thieves in the same way that Rangers are forest marshals, which is to say it's only a small part of their job description). True balance is boring, especially in a game in which randomized factors play a large part and not skill. Which is exactly why I don't play 4th ed D&D. 

[Volourn]

"(Protip: Rogues are thieves in the same way that Rangers are forest marshals, which is to say it's only a small part of their job description)."

 

What are you talking. Rogue vs thief in terms of name  is irrelevant since it is describing the same class. 'Thief' was always a misnomer since not every member of the thief/rogyue style classes are actually *thieves* which is why DnD and other systems changed the name. But, that's irrelevant to this discussion.

[Lephys]

No, no it isn't. Balance is illogical, unfun, unoriginal, uninnovative, boring,  and too much of 'everyone is a winner!' which is a huge plague in modern scoiety.

 

A thief (rogue) should NEVER be the equal of a FIGHTER! in a fight. It's silly talk.

You're right. Let's give the Thief ONLY the ability to:

 

A) Enter Stealth mode.

B) Pick Pockets.

C) Pick Locks.

 

There, that's fine. He never even levels up or anything (because why would he need to? His stealth makes him completely invisible and undetectable, and he automatically can pick any lock or pocket), and as long as he has absolutely no opposition or resistance, he can definitely stab you in the heart from behind. Otherwise, he's dead.

 

That would be perfectly acceptable, since there's absolutely no reason to even consider balance at all.

[Volourn]

If you think a rogue should be limited to that stuff than you have no cocnept of the class works.  But, hey, you are just spamming nonsense with no logic behind it.

[constantine]

Stealth in PoE will be a skill that anyone can invest points in and points awarded to Skills come from a different pool than that of those awarded to Class Talents.

[Volourn]

Your point?