How does PoE innovate?

[PrimeJunta]

While I don't think rogues should necessarily be weaker than fighters in combat, I do think something has been lost with the "utility character."

 

The party leader of my most fun party in Storm of Zehir was just such a character -- I built him to have all the skills... or, well, all the skills needed on the world map anyway -- so when combat started all he could do was sit on a rock and plink with an arrow, more or less. On the other hand, everyone else was a minmaxed-to-the-hilt wrecking ball, so they made up for it.

 

That was fun to play specifically because of the changed party composition, and the constant discoveries on the world map made it more than worth it.

 

(Okay, technically I did kit him up with scrolls in case extra magical firepower was needed, but that was rarely used and more of an optional extra.)

[anameforobsidian]

The rogue thing is simple.  People got used to seeing rogues as pickpockets when they should have always been closer to bandits, vicious fighters that focused on ambush tactics.  They should just change the name of fighter to guard, since every character is a fighter.

 

As for the original question of how they innovate (or bring in under-utilized features), which is far more interesting:

slow-motion mode,

the mixture of static and dynamic effects,

the atmosphere/historical period,

cyphers,

Chanters vs. Bards,

the stat system,

Aumaua,

Boreal Dwarves,

Orlan vs. Haflings,

the mixed inventory system,

quests for npcs the player is not using in their party,

the ability to imprison named NPCs

 

And it's worthwhile to note that several of these things have been subjected to constant bitching on the forums, which points to a weird and hypocritical tension between innovation and faithful reproduction.

[Elerond]

As all classes have same usefulness level outside of combat in PoE which means that same should be true for combat also as otherwise it means that there would be classes that are superior compared to other classes. So classes should not differentiate each other in how well they work in combat, but what role they play in combat (which if it's over simplified could be compared to how classes work in many MMORPGs). Goal of class design should be make them play different from each other so that each is interesting to play and have in your party and that all classes have some unique advantage that make you regret that you don't have that particular class with you at least in some encounters, if not all.

 

In current knowledge: Rogues are good in moving in combat without hindrance and they have potential to deal most damage in short time, although this is conditional to status effects and other things. Fighters are good to block multiple enemies, as they have ability to engage more than one and they can take more hits than most of other classes and they also are good to do reliable amount damage, so even though they can match rogues in damage peaks, they probably will not leave behind in amount of dealt damage in end of battle. Wizards are versatile class, that has best ability to adapt in multiple roles in combat, but currently it's hard to tell if they will be best in any role. Rangers have their animal companions and ability deal lots of damage in short time, but similar to rogue this is tied to status effects, but their animal companions make them play differently to any other class and give them ability to play roles that any other class can't play. Monks one would argue play similar role as warriors, but their abilities that powered by wounds they have suffered make them play very differently from fighters, making them good in somethings that fighters don't excel but they also can't do everything that fighters can do. Druids with their shape changing will play differently from any other class and even though they are said to be crowd control specialist there seems to be potential for more. Ciphers seems to have their unique approach towards combat with their ability to control their enemies, which in all probability make make them play much differently than monks and fighters which are closest of them in combat role wise. Paladins have ability to boost themselves and their party members and bring them back to fight from state on unconscious, but even though they are so called support class that don't mean that they stay out from combat, but instead they seem to be front line support unit, which gives them ability to even to replace front line classes as even though they don't necessary have same ability to block/stop enemies as those your front line classes they have ability to boost your other members so that you don't need their blocking/stopping abilities.

 

So currently all classes seems to have that unique aspect that make you want to play with them or at least have one in your party, although it is still hard to say if they will get power balance right that it actually will be so, but one can hope that will be the case.

 

And for the topic: PoE goals are very much opposite of innovative, as they try to go with classic look and feel in their gameplay, graphics, environmental design, quest design, class design, etc.. But there will be some innovation as they make new world, new ruleset and they use modern game engine. So one could compare it to Volkswagen's new versions of their classic Beetle, where you get lot of modern technology that are put in shell that has that classic feel (more or less depending on person). So PoE probably will not innovate anything absolutely new to gaming, but it will combine (in all probability) old things in way that it will feel something new and what you haven't previously experienced. Lots of time things that we call innovative are only things that combined already innovated things in new way or way that is easier to approach than what they have been previously. 

[Osvir]

I think the whole "Rogues are just as strong as Fighters in combat" is to be taken with a bit of a situational salt.

First and foremost, we are talking about Pillars of Eternity and speculating on how Rogue's are handled in Pillars of Eternity, right? I'm putting this emphasis here, because PoE's Rogues are PoE's Rogues. They aren't the IE Rogues or D&D Rogues and most definately NOT MMO Rogues. They are Pillars of Eternity's Rogues (<- Official PoE Wiki link and I suggest anyone who haven't researched or read up on this for a while should take their time to do so). Moving on then...

(Speculation) A Rogue is just as strong as a Fighter in combat if utilized in it's most optimal way, and yes, a Fighter is just as good as a Rogue at sneaking if utilized in just the right way.

I could get past a guardsman with a Fighter that only has 50% of the Rogue's sneaking if I am careful and patient. It might take longer times of observation and watching the guardsman's patrol path, but ultimately I will get past the guardsman with my Fighter. Sure, a Rogue might get past him faster, but the Fighter still gets past him... correct?

In the same sense in combat, a Fighter in melee combat can stand his ground and act more like a static "Tower" piece on the battlefield. I wouldn't need too much micromanagement, but the Rogue on the other hand would require more of my attention.

This means that the Rogue and Fighter gets to be assets used in combat, the Rogue just needs more of my attention in combat. Likewise, the Fighter would require more of my attention in a "stealth" scenario. (/Speculation End)

Edited April 16, 2014 by Osvir

[PrimeJunta]

Your combat scenario sounds about right, but I'm not so sure about the stealth scenario. If detection is based on radius, there could easily be situations where your fighter's detection radius is simply too large to get him past the guard without tripping the alarm, no matter what  you do.

 

And that's all good as far as I am concerned.

[Hassat Hunter]

They should just change the name of fighter to guard, since every character is a fighter.

Or better yet, change rogue to ninja, and fighter to punchbag.

Way more fitting...

[Fatback]

They might innovate with this slow cob bate toggle if it works as I hope it does. Also if they allow key binds.

 

Edits lol cob bate

Edited April 16, 2014 by Fatback

[Lephys]

"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.

People make a lot of decisions in PnP games that they don't make in cRPGs that demand a noteworthy competency in combat in order to not simply fail to progress at some point.

 

Also, you didn't answer my question. Using the example I provided, do you think people would generally be rather disinclined to willingly play as a Rogue? Assuming all the other classes got to level up, and got all kinds of abilities and combat capabilities throughout the whole game (forgot to specify that context with my example, initially... sorry about that.) And if so (or even if not), why?

[constantine]

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?

 

 

Good point, like the Swashbuckler/ Musketeer or Pirate (Jack Sparrow   ) archetypes that are all quite roguish but still front-liners.

[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.

 

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

 

 

 

*Ahem* you have clearly misunderstood sir. The dwarf race in PoE or by the pen-and-paper standard are humanoid creatures, but not humans.

 

C r e a t u r e s.

 

With humanoid characteristics.

 

Much like is an Ogre-Orc-Goblin-Bugbear-Gnoll-Aumaua-Elf-Orlan

 

 

They do not share any of the inabilities you mentioned and they can excel in anything they put their minds into. Of course past tradition has set them as excellent fighters first and foremost, those with fierceness, might and skill that can make the average human soldier tremble in their sight.

[illathid]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

*Ahem* you have clearly misunderstood sir. The dwarf race in PoE or by the pen-and-paper standard are humanoid creatures, but not humans.

 

C r e a t u r e s.

 

With humanoid characteristics.

 

Much like is an Ogre-Orc-Goblin-Bugbear-Gnoll-Aumaua-Elf-Orlan

 

 

They do not share any of the inabilities you mentioned and they can excel in anything they put their minds into. Of course past tradition has set them as excellent fighters first and foremost, those with fierceness, might and skill that can make the average human soldier tremble in their sight.

 

 

No, I don't think he misunderstood at all. You get that that's making a joke right?

[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.

 

 

 

*Ahem* you have clearly misunderstood sir. The dwarf race in PoE or by the pen-and-paper standard are humanoid creatures, but not humans.

 

C r e a t u r e s.

 

With humanoid characteristics.

 

Much like is an Ogre-Orc-Goblin-Bugbear-Gnoll-Aumaua-Elf-Orlan

 

 

They do not share any of the inabilities you mentioned and they can excel in anything they put their minds into. Of course past tradition has set them as excellent fighters first and foremost, those with fierceness, might and skill that can make the average human soldier tremble in their sight.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I believe that PoE is going to really do the base melee class "Fighter" a great deal of favors. Their use of group stealth should be very interesting, and the actual presence of substantial choice (rather than a false dichotomy) is highly anticipated too. The health and damage system feel reminiscent of FATE RPG, which is very good--if new only to electronic mediums.

 

If they can resist the compulsion to kneel before the profane and unholy "Altar of Balance", then I'm sure many other innovations will exist as well. Narrative and literary depth aside, their main goal seems to be much like any other cRPG. Refine traditional class structure into something more distinct, fluid, and fun.

[Lephys]

Balance always gets such a bad rep.

 

Even the amount of balancing, funnily enough, needs to be balanced. Full balance would simply be 1 class and no mutual exclusion at all, etc. No balance would be sheer chaos.

 

It's a very general thing, that can either be utilized appropriately or, like anything, used very heavy-handedly.

[PrimeJunta]

As an aside, I just started playing IWD 2 (first run), and I decided to make a party modeled on P:E's roles. So I took a fighter, barbarian, cleric, rogue, and two sorcerers, and minmaxed the bejeezus out of them to fit the roles Josh has in mind for P:E.

 

In particular, I've been playing the rogue as the "damager," rather than the usual scout/utility character. I gave her Weapon Focus in polearms for more reach with maximum damage, Dash for speed, and of course the usual roguey sneaking and dodging skills, and then adjusted my tactics so that I actively try to get her into position for backstabs during combat rather than just at the start. (This gets a bit hectic with two sorcerers to manage as well, so I am pausing a lot.)

 

Turns out that she is well ahead of the others in terms of total damage dealt... at level 6 that is. STR 18 + two-handed weapon + that magic spear with extra reach + stealth attack bonus does add up to rather a lot. It never occurred to me to play a rogue rocking a halberd, but it sure does work.

 

However now my Evoker/Sorcerer got Fireball so I have a hunch she's gonna catch up plenty fast, as the D&D 'magic dominates' thing starts kicking in. It's always a bit of a bummer to have the non-magic-using characters turn into baggage as the levels rack up; if P:E manages not to do this, it is going to be the better game for it. If it manages to distinguish the 'defender' and 'damager' roles better, even cooler; as it is the fighter is kind of useless because gankers can just run past him unless he's literally shoulder to shoulder with the barb and cleric.

[Aslinng]

I don't need inovation.

I just need "Baldur's gate HD".

[Stun]

Sorry for resurrecting this post from all the way back on page one....

 

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

 

I'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.

 

Considering the fact that (A)D&D did not invent a single arch-type...ever, I'd say, No. It's NOT because of (A)D&D.

 

I think it might stem from something much, much, much, older than AD&D. Fighters Fight. That's what they do. That's what they've always done since the very first battle. Fighting is what defines them. Rogues on the other hand, have always been a different profession. Rogues steal. They scout. They skulk in shadows. They smuggle. They play with Poison. They enter a building through the 2nd floor, instead of kicking down the front gate, and brandishing their weapons in anticipation of a siege. etc. Even when they're hired to assassinate someone, they try to do it in a way where they won't have to actually engage in any fighting at all. When a Rogue fights, it's because something went wrong.

 

So you ask why Rogues shouldn't be as good at being fighters as fighters? I would think the answer is Obvious: because it's not their area of expertise. If you're being sued, You're not going to run to your Dentist and ask him to be your Lawyer, are you?

Edited April 22, 2014 by Stun

[Tamerlane]

You make Zorro, The Dread Pirate Roberts, The Man With No Name, Omar Little, Fafhrd, etc. cry.

 

Though yeah, if you want a good haircut and a shave, I can't recommend a barbarian enough.

[Stun]

 

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.

 

<sigh>

 

Is that what he's suggesting, Lephys? Is that what your head is interpreting from his post?

 

Come down now. Thanks. Rogues should most definitely become (as they gain levels) absolute masters in their own unique set of defined skills, and that includes the sneaky, stealthy, thievery peripheral-to-fighting stuff. It does NOT mean that they should be also be equal to fighters in fighting. And this is BECAUSE of Balance. Otherwise no one would ever want to use a fighter (why be a fighter, when you can be a Rogue and be just as good in combat as a fighter PLUS be the best at the stealthy, thief-y, sneaky skillset?)

 

This is a no-brainer to everyone who hasn't been fully seduced by Skyrim, where The Archmage can become the leader of the Companions as he rules the Thieves guild.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Stun

[Zeckul]

I don't need inovation.

I just need "Baldur's gate HD".

That already exists

Edited April 23, 2014 by Zeckul

[Lephys]

<sigh>

 

Is that what he's suggesting, Lephys? Is that what your head is interpreting from his post?

Yes. That's so precisely what I was saying, it's SCARY! 8D

 

Just like in this:

 

Sorry for resurrecting this post from all the way back on page one....

I'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.

Considering the fact that (A)D&D did not invent a single arch-type...ever, I'd say, No. It's NOT because of (A)D&D.

 

Tajerio, when simply asking "Is it because that's how AD&D did it?", is clearly asking "Is it because AD&D totally invented the universe?". I don't know how you interpret our cryptic, cryptic words so perfectly.

 

I'll indulge you with this one, relatively brief (for me) response. Firstly, all the above here is sarcasm, just so you know. I don't have time to explain how that works in detail, but you can look it up.

 

Secondly, here's what I was actually conveying (also via sarcasm) with the quoted response to Volourn: Yes, that isn't something he'd want, now is it? Why? Because it's clearly terrible. Guess what else it is? Horribly imbalanced.

 

Thus, just because balance can (and often is) taken too far, and/or is overly prioritized as the driving force for changes/decisions does not mean that balance, itself (in whatever capacity) is somehow bad or no reason at all to do anything. Thus, saying what amounts to "balance is dumb and pointless" is, well, pretty pointless.

 

And yes, Skyrim has a silly design. You're always getting onto me about extreme examples, so why on earth would you basically say "Ummm... look at Skyrim, and how there are basically no boundaries to what you can excel at. So, obviously, Rogues MUST suck at fighting, u_u..."?

 

I don't understand why you can't simply analyze something for what it is, instead of trying to just shortcut your way through it. Is it impatience? I have no idea. Balance is not "Skyrim or bust!". Balance can be done wrong, or done fine, as with almost anything, ever.

 

Anywho, this is getting a bit lengthy. I'd better stop here.

[Stun]

Just like in this:

Sorry for resurrecting this post from all the way back on page one....

I'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.

Considering the fact that (A)D&D did not invent a single arch-type...ever, I'd say, No. It's NOT because of (A)D&D.

 

Tajerio, when simply asking "Is it because that's how AD&D did it?", is clearly asking "Is it because AD&D totally invented the universe?". I don't know how you interpret our cryptic, cryptic words so perfectly.

 

What?

 

I think I answered his question as specifically, as civilly and as unassumingly as possible.

 

 

 

Secondly, here's what I was actually conveying (also via sarcasm) with the quoted response to Volourn: Yes, that isn't something he'd want, now is it? Why? Because it's clearly terrible. Guess what else it is? Horribly imbalanced.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. Well, I guess in a game like Icewind Dale, where combat makes up 99% of all conflict, then yes, a rogue skill-set can be seen as underpowered. But I'm pretty sure we weren't talking about your average, one-dimensional dungeon crawler. Instead, we were discussing the rogue arch-type, and specifically, rogue in cRPGs as a whole.

 

Which can be an entirely different experience. A Party-based RPG where scouting can give you an edge; where disarming traps on the battlefield can actually be the difference between winning and dying horribly; where laying traps can mean the same; where information gathering is rewarded; where stealing is beneficial, etc. Will suddenly see the Rogue be just as useful as the Fighter even though he's not as good at fighting.

 

And THAT is balance.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Stun

[tajerio]

I think it might stem from something much, much, much, older than AD&D. Fighters Fight. That's what they do. That's what they've always done since the very first battle. Fighting is what defines them. Rogues on the other hand, have always been a different profession. Rogues steal. They scout. They skulk in shadows. They smuggle. They play with Poison. They enter a building through the 2nd floor, instead of kicking down the front gate, and brandishing their weapons in anticipation of a siege. etc. Even when they're hired to assassinate someone, they try to do it in a way where they won't have to actually engage in any fighting at all. When a Rogue fights, it's because something went wrong.

 

I guess my problem with this is:

 

You make Zorro, The Dread Pirate Roberts, The Man With No Name, Omar Little, Fafhrd, etc. cry.

 

I think "Fighter" is a touch too broad to be an archetype.  To me, it's a description that doesn't signify much more than someone who doesn't use magic in battle.  Within that description, there are archetypes that expand upon how somebody fights.  Rogues, brutes, barbarians, stalwart soldiers, etc. are all fighters in my lexicon.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

The sneaky thieves, the cat burglars have been turned into swashbucklers. The Bilbo Baggins sneaking around halfling type thief is now the Errol Flynn Robin Hood or Jack Sparrow type Rogue. When you have so many types of characters and classes under the one umbrella of 'Rogue' then some of those types will fall by the wayside with new systems/games to make them useful in combat. Now you have a Swashbuckler with thieving abilities.

[Ffordesoon]

To be honest, I would do away with "Fighter" as a class in itself in a heartbeat. I'd keep the mechanical role, but the name itself is too broad to convey anything about a character. Which one is more descriptive, "Fighter" or "Barbarian"? Which one sounds cooler, "Fighter" or "Kensai"? I'd rather see Fighter elevated to a party role, and the specific class replaced by "Warrior."

 

And yes, I think 4E's party roles were a smart idea. I don't think it's a bad idea to have "metaclasses" which multiple classes can fit into. It's the logical progression of 2E's increased focus on class kits and 3E's focus on level-dipping, and it hearkens back to the earliest days of D&D, when the only "classes" were Fighter, Thief, Magic-User, and Cleric. Those are still the four mechanical archetypes every D&D character fits into, if you think about it (though I would change "Thief" to "Rogue" and "Cleric" to "Healer" in order to make those party roles sound as broad as "Fighter" and "Magic-User").

 

The party role system had the same two big problems all of 4E had: presentation and - to a lesser degree - implementation. They could have saved themselves a lot of agitation if they'd A) given the party roles the names I just suggested instead of the weird MMO-y ones, and B) upgraded all the extant 3E class kits to full classes. Yes, all of them; the thing that made Pathfinder into the juggernaut it is today is the simple process of conversion between 3.5 and PF. What people hated about 4E more than any mechanical changes was the lack of cross-compatibility and openness, and the consequent gutting of build customization. I think the rational argument against 4E would be substantially weaker if you could use all the weird 3-3.5 classes right out of the box.