How does PoE innovate?

[constantine]

Also each Class will have 2 starting Skills, which are more likely to be pre-determined for each Class, so a Rogue naturally begins with a free Stealth Specialization.

 

 

But he will not be the only guy who can 'use stealth mode'.

Edited April 15, 2014 by constantine

[Tamerlane]

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.

Dwarves should never be the equal of anyone. Stumpy little jerks can hardly see over the table, their arms are too stubby to wield any weapon worth using, and they're clearly too dumb to be spellcasters of any quality. It's only this "you get a trophy just for participating" watered-down world we live in that lets people pretend dwarves are equal.

[constantine]

 

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.

Dwarves should never be the equal of anyone. Stumpy little jerks can hardly see over the table, their arms are too stubby to wield any weapon worth using, and they're clearly too dumb to be spellcasters of any quality. It's only this "you get a trophy just for participating" watered-down world we live in that lets people pretend dwarves are equal.

 

 

 

But then Dwarves in cRPGs are not like those of Disney's classic film or like the Imp of Game of Thrones.

Edited April 15, 2014 by constantine

[Volourn]

"Also each Class will have 2 starting Skills, which are more likely to be pre-determined for each Class, so a Rogue naturally begins with a free Stealth Specialization.

 

 

But he will not be the only guy who can 'use stealth mode'."

 

What's your point with this nonsense?  This proves nothing nor is PE original in this approach. Just like the fighter isn't the only class that fights.

 

POINT. NOT. FOUND.

[constantine]

I was replying to that post:

 

 

 

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.

 

[Tamerlane]

 

 

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.

Dwarves should never be the equal of anyone. Stumpy little jerks can hardly see over the table, their arms are too stubby to wield any weapon worth using, and they're clearly too dumb to be spellcasters of any quality. It's only this "you get a trophy just for participating" watered-down world we live in that lets people pretend dwarves are equal.

 

 

 

But then Dwarves in cRPGs are not like those of Disney's classic film or like the Imp of Game of Thrones.

 

Don't fall for PC propaganda from those east-coast elitists.

[illathid]

Vol, you said rogues should not be as good as fighters in a fight. What metric are you using? Max damage? Average damage? Ability to take a hit? Battlefield control? Protecting allies? Some other thing I haven't mentioned? As I see it there are lots of ways a caharacter can be good in fight. Does the fighter need to be better in everything or just some? I'm trying to unpack your statement.

Edited April 15, 2014 by illathid

[Lephys]

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.

That's weird. What, you think people would all just play as other classes and not the Rogue? For what reason would they possibly do that? Could it be due to some failing on the Rogue's part in some relativistic comparison to the other classes?

 

[Jarrakul]

So, I notice some folks blaming the rogues-as-DPS thing on MMOs, but I don't think that's where it comes from. I'm pretty sure it comes from not wanting to have combat specialists and non-combat specialists. That's a dichotomy that crops up a lot in old RPGs (Fallout is probably the best example) and in PnP RPGs, and while it's entirely realistic, it makes for bad gameplay (although if you happen to be Fallout you can make up for it in other ways). This is something that became blindingly obvious to me when I played a d20 Modern game as a Charismatic Hero. I was a socialite to end all socialites. My Bluff checks were the stuff of legend, let me tell you, and it was glorious. Until a fight started. When I fight started, I was suddenly unable to contribute... anything. I mean, I could shoot at things, but hitting was basically out of the question, as was dealing decent damage if I did somehow manage to hit. The greatest contribution I could add was if one of the enemies made the mistake of wasting time shooting at me instead of someone who was actually a threat. As much fun as the character was when he was in his element, a large portion of the time I was utterly useless. Not "not the best". Useless. Nothing I could do would ever swing the direction of a fight. And as such, overall, it was the least fun character I have ever played in 18 years of PnP RPGs.

 

Playing rogues in 2E and 3E is similar (I never played much 1E, but it's close enough to 2E for me to guess). Not quite as bad, because you get one good hit before you're worthless. Not even that good a hit, really, but it's something. 3E is slightly better than 2E in some ways, because if I can flank things I can actually do good damage right up until the moment anything realizes I'm doing damage and I immediately die. Which means I get one good round, instead of one good hit, and then I'm twiddling my thumbs for the next couple of hours. And, of course, if it's 3E and I'm up against undead, I'm just totally useless.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that the applicability of that to party-based games is limited, but it still holds true enough to be a serious concern. In games where a given player only controls one character, it's absolutely essential.

PS. I'm also amused by the argument that rogues shouldn't be as good at combat as fighters because it makes everyone the same, but paladins and rangers and barbarians are totally fine. So what if the rogue is another warrior class? Why can't we have another warrior class, representing an archetype that is not otherwise well-supported? What's wrong with that?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

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."  

 

So what is your answer to the Rogue? And 4th edition is very much part of this discussion. Do you think PoE is getting it right by slotting it into the DPS role? Compared to the Fighter who isn't.

 

 

PS. I'm also amused by the argument that rogues shouldn't be as good at combat as fighters because it makes everyone the same, but paladins and rangers and barbarians are totally fine. So what if the rogue is another warrior class? Why can't we have another warrior class, representing an archetype that is not otherwise well-supported? What's wrong with that?

 

I don't have a problem with a Rogue being effective in combat. What I do have concerns with is making the Rogue some type of glass cannon that can do a hell of a lot more damage than a Fighter and say a Wizard a couple of levels higher than them. It's what I've experienced with 4th ed pnp. It's become one of the go to classes due to its effective damage output. For our group, it's become the default to have one in our party.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Lephys]

Referring to the "DPS role" is such an overgeneralization, since DPS doesn't really mean much without also considering factors like effective HPS (hits per second) and LODPS (lack-of-death per second), etc.

 

In an MMORPG, things do actually get about that generalized, because of the whole "at level 1, you have 7 hitpoints, and at level 50 you have EIGHT-BILLION HITPOINTS!" approach to combat design. But, in a game like PoE, the role doesn't really hold true so simply, because you're not going to just pit a Fighter against a given foe, and a Rogue against another instance of that SAME foe, tell them both to attack, and record that, 5 seconds later, the Rogue has done 30 damage to the Fighter's 20.

 

The Rogue's role is going to be what it's always been: to be an opportunist. While the Fighter doesn't really need to wait for Opportunity to knock to kick the door down, but also doesn't take quite as much advantage of it.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Okay, so what would you prefer? Heavy Hitters as Obsidian calls them or Strikers as with 4th ed. They're all basically the same.

[illathid]

I don't have a problem with a Rogue being effective in combat. What I do have concerns with is making the Rogue some type of glass cannon that can do a hell of a lot more damage than a Fighter and say a Wizard a couple of levels higher than them. It's what I've experienced with 4th ed pnp. It's become one of the go to classes due to its effective damage output. For our group, it's become the default to have one in our party.

Well your wizard example you mentioned above is a bit off. Fireball can hit more than one target and so it's total damage is dependent upon how many targets are caught in the blast. It could very quickly outstrip the rogues damage potential in a target rich environment.

 

Another thing to be wary of is to assume that the best way to determine class balance is to see who would win in a one on one fight (not saying your doing this Hiro, just trying to speak generally). Different classes have strengths and weakness that can make them better or worse in a particular fight. For example, you wouldn't say "Rock always beats Scissors in a duel, Rock is overpowered."

[Volourn]

"Not quite as bad, because you get one good hit before you're worthless."

 

If you think a rogue is 'worthless' ina  fight outside of backstab/sneak attack, your idea of 'worthless' is weird. A rogue as per DnD can do many things in battle. Just b/c their attack roll isn't as high as a warrior's doesn't mean they can't hit anything either. A fighter using a long sword does 1d8 damage while a rogue using a short sword does 1d6 damage (those are two 'stereotypical' weapons) so not much difference there then it depends on individual strength. Then yu throw in scroll/magic item ability. Heck, a rogue can read miror image, stoneskin, and other useful battle spells crolls to get an edge on the warrior.

 

"PS. I'm also amused by the argument that rogues shouldn't be as good at combat as fighters because it makes everyone the same, but paladins and rangers and barbarians are totally fine"

 

Paladins and rangers are special warrior classes.  They have differences from fighters both 'good' and 'bad'. There's a reason why, originally, these classes equired more xp to level up... but, this unholy pursuit of balance in rpgs has changed the general mindset where all has to be equal.

 

 

"That's weird. What, you think people would all just play as other classes and not the Rogue? For what reason would they possibly do that? Could it be due to some failing on the Rogue's part in some relativistic comparison to the other classes?"

 

That's weird. Never once in my pnp life did I see a rogue not be played ebcause it was 'too weak'. In fact, it was often chosen because prferred it.  Rogue has its ROLE in ROLE PLAYING GAMES. Now,  people want a rogue to be basically a fighter. Why bother with the class then?  That's the issue I have with the DA version of it. There's not enough of a difference between rogue and warrior to make a huge difference to matter. DA would have been served better with 2 classes - Adventurer and Mage. Period.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

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.

Funny story, at my LCS when they were trying to get people playing PnP, they put the 3.5 books out front and kept the 4e near the back.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Well your wizard example you mentioned above is a bit off. Fireball can hit more than one target and so it's total damage is dependent upon how many targets are caught in the blast. It could very quickly outstrip the rogues damage potential in a target rich environment.

 

You're right. Fireball is crowd control and I was using it against a single target and was a bad example as it's usually used against many targets. Against one target, it's not an effective use of the spell.

 

But then looking at the lightning spell that can hit up to 3 enemies on a level 10 Wizard. 2d6 + 13 damage. You have to make three attack rolls, one against each enemy. And if all three hit then the average damage will be 20 on all three, total 60 damage. My example of a level 8 Rogue without the action point is average 48 damage. Of course more in damage if all three lightning bolts hit. But you would expect more damage with a level 10 against a level 8. If one misses, then it can do pretty much the same damage as the Rogue, due to Lightning Bolt having half damage with misses, but it would be still comparable to a lower level Rogue. And I wouldn't even look at single target spells, as they're even less powerful (in damage). Again this is comparing a higher level character to a lower level character with damage output on certain skills and powers. And you can see why our pnp group will have a rogue in our party. eg. Level 8 characters/encounters with a Rogue than can do massive damage.

[Hassat Hunter]

Sure, in singleplayer games it would suck to play supportive... but this is a team-based game, so why not?

 

Bao-Dur is a crafter. Can he be a more awesome fighter? Sure. But I always keep Jedifying him off long as possible since he's more useful as support.

Is that a problem?

According to this thread; apparently.

[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."  

 

So what is your answer to the Rogue? And 4th edition is very much part of this discussion. Do you think PoE is getting it right by slotting it into the DPS role? Compared to the Fighter who isn't.

 

I think that the approach PoE is trying could end up being one that's quite fun, though I won't know until I play.  "Getting it right," though, implies that there is an objective right and wrong in the debate, and I don't think that's true.  

 

I'm also suspicious of categorizing rogues as DPS and fighters as non-DPS.  Comparing them in one instance of dealing damage, yeah, the rogue will deal more than the fighter.  Across forty seconds, well, the fighter's durability and accuracy bonus would seem to have a pretty fair shot at giving him higher sustained damage.  But both of those things can be described with the term DPS.  And that doesn't mention the ability the fighter has to control the battlefield with engagement, or the rogue's ability to inflict status effects.  Their roles are more complex than the bog-standard MMO "DPS and tank."   

[Tamerlane]

Sure, in singleplayer games it would suck to play supportive... but this is a team-based game, so why not?

 

Bao-Dur is a crafter. Can he be a more awesome fighter? Sure. But I always keep Jedifying him off long as possible since he's more useful as support.

Is that a problem?

According to this thread; apparently.

I think a lot of it comes down to the PC. The PC is going to be in 99-100 percent of the fights in the game. Given that, very few people out there are are interested in making "PC that does support stuff at the expense of combat"; certainly far fewer than people who are interested in "sneaky powerful skirmish dude" or whatever other blasphemous thing is up for debate.

[Gulliver]

There's nothing worse for rpgs than streamlining classes. Might as well get rid of classes altogether. The only difference between a DA 2 mage and a DA 2 rogue is the animation.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I think that the approach PoE is trying could end up being one that's quite fun, though I won't know until I play.  "Getting it right," though, implies that there is an objective right and wrong in the debate, and I don't think that's true.  

 

Well you did ask why rogues can't be as good as fighters. Which implies there's something wrong. So you don't think it's true that there is an objective right or wrong in the debate concerning Rogues, especially in AD&D which you've referenced in your posts.

 

 

I'm also suspicious of categorizing rogues as DPS and fighters as non-DPS.  Comparing them in one instance of dealing damage, yeah, the rogue will deal more than the fighter.  Across forty seconds, well, the fighter's durability and accuracy bonus would seem to have a pretty fair shot at giving him higher sustained damage.  But both of those things can be described with the term DPS.  And that doesn't mention the ability the fighter has to control the battlefield with engagement, or the rogue's ability to inflict status effects.  Their roles are more complex than the bog-standard MMO "DPS and tank."   

 

That's how Obsidian are explaining their roles. Heavy hitters and tanks.

[tajerio]

 

 

I think that the approach PoE is trying could end up being one that's quite fun, though I won't know until I play.  "Getting it right," though, implies that there is an objective right and wrong in the debate, and I don't think that's true.  

 

Well you did ask why rogues can't be as good as fighters. Which implies there's something wrong. So you don't think it's true that there is an objective right or wrong in the debate concerning Rogues, especially in AD&D which you've referenced in your posts.

 

Correct--I have a personal preference but I'm very much aware that it's personal and not universal.  A lot of people seem to think that there IS something objectively wrong with a rogue being as competent in combat as a fighter, though, and I was curious as to why that was.

 

I'm also suspicious of categorizing rogues as DPS and fighters as non-DPS.  Comparing them in one instance of dealing damage, yeah, the rogue will deal more than the fighter.  Across forty seconds, well, the fighter's durability and accuracy bonus would seem to have a pretty fair shot at giving him higher sustained damage.  But both of those things can be described with the term DPS.  And that doesn't mention the ability the fighter has to control the battlefield with engagement, or the rogue's ability to inflict status effects.  Their roles are more complex than the bog-standard MMO "DPS and tank."   

 

That's how Obsidian are explaining their roles. Heavy hitters and tanks.

 

That's the shorthand they're using--I think the actual terms Josh used in update #71 were heavy hitters and the front line--but there's a lot more subtlety to it than just "this guy does the damage, this guy takes the damage."

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think Rogues should be much different from Fighters, but both should be roughly the same level of usefulness in combat. The reason Rogues get compared to Fighters is that in too many cRPGs, a Rogues abilities are not as useful in combat, which makes up a very large portion of cRPG gameplay. In the IE games combat, Rogues weren't very useful if they weren't backstabbing(often a one-time option for most battles, and a large swath of ToB foes were immune IIRC) or setting traps(an ability limited to a certain few uses per day). Meanwhile, Warriors could beat things till they dropped, Mages got spells(which in BG2 did pretty much everything), and Priests got a different spell set and were slightly better in martial combat than Rogues.

 

I don't think being Balanced necessitates equal damage in all situations or similar abilities for every class, it just means that every class should be a good choice and there shouldn't be any options that are superior in all(or almost all) circumstances. This isn't dumbing down, streamlining, or casualization.

[illathid]

So if a class does more damage then it automatically is "better" at fighting? So that is all that matter in tactical combat? Damage? Lets forget about all the other factors and just focus on damage? I don't follow this logic.

 

Yeah, this was part of my question to Vol on the last page... Which it seems he ignored.

[PrimeJunta]

 

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.

 

 

BG2 was as mainstream as games got at the time.