Update #78: The Leaders of the Band: Chanters and Priests

[PrimeJunta]

It's one thing to make classes distinctive, but quite another to make one of them into a "support character". Who wants to be Sancho Panza, when you can be Don Quixote? It's not that the "support character" is a matter of taste here. It's making them a second-class, err, class!

:me raises hand:

 

I'm pretty sure Sancho had more fun than Don Quixote. I've made "support" builds in various cRPG's and had fun with them, e.g. that skillmaster in SoZ I've mentioned several times.

 

I also ran a PnP campaign where one of the players was a noble and high official and everyone else were his retainers or slaves. That worked out really well; the players really jumped into the roles, with the staff doing all kinds of underhanded stuff behind the boss's back, manipulating him, pulling him out of scrapes, and so on and so forth.

 

I.e. I'm very much in favor of the support role for priests. If you want to play a more warlike godlike type, just pick a paladin.

 

Also the D&D3 cleric broke the game. I played them too, a lot, simply because they were so awesomely powerful and versatile -- in fact, the D&D cleric is the closest D&D gets to a classless class as you can build a huge range of perfectly workable and diverse builds with it.

 

Why is this bad? It's bad because it means that every time I built a cleric -- again -- it meant that I didn't build something else. All the effort that went into those other classes was wasted on me.

 

Therefore, it is my strong preference that classes are (1) roughly equal in value, and (2) clearly differentiated. This way I'll get enjoyable gameplay from all of them, not just by finding out which one is best and then sticking with that. Having a clearly overpowered class like a D&D3 cleric is just as bad as having a clearly underpowered one.

[Skie Nightfall]

I like the fact that behaviour modifies the priest/paladin's abilities.

[Messier-31]

 

It's one thing to make classes distinctive, but quite another to make one of them into a "support character". Who wants to be Sancho Panza, when you can be Don Quixote? It's not that the "support character" is a matter of taste here. It's making them a second-class, err, class!

:me raises hand:

 

I'm pretty sure Sancho had more fun than Don Quixote. I've made "support" builds in various cRPG's and had fun with them, e.g. that skillmaster in SoZ I've mentioned several times.

 

I also ran a PnP campaign where one of the players was a noble and high official and everyone else were his retainers or slaves. That worked out really well; the players really jumped into the roles, with the staff doing all kinds of underhanded stuff behind the boss's back, manipulating him, pulling him out of scrapes, and so on and so fort 

 

Same here, playing PnP roleplays is a great example. The problem is the ability to enjoy playing such a character - supportive or whatnot - and by that I mean ROLE-PLAYING. Now, shifting all aspects of roleplaying (not just battling with enemies) from PnP into cRPG is challenging.

[Faerunner]

So many people complaining about the Priest being "boring." I feel odd over here because I think they actually sound interesting. Priests/clerics/religious spellcasters have traditionally been my least favorite characters because I'm very secular. Single-minded devotion to some vague higher power never appealed to me. However, I find these priests rather fascinating. They aren't just zealous deity devotees, they're learned philosophers, historians, and lorists, open to discussions and new insights regarding their faith. Faith is what fuels their magic, but it's not faith born of blind devotion or endless postrating. They study, they learn, they think, they discuss (or are at least open to it). And apparently they're rather athletic from all the travel and fighting.

 

Plus, if memory serves, we have at least one goddess of war and a god of death. You think priests are "boring"? How dull can it be serving and living by the example of divine personifications of war and death?

[Endrosz]

I'm very much in favor of the support role for priests. If you want to play a more warlike godlike type, just pick a paladin.

 

Also the D&D3 cleric broke the game. I played them too, a lot, simply because they were so awesomely powerful and versatile -- in fact, the D&D cleric is the closest D&D gets to a classless class as you can build a huge range of perfectly workable and diverse builds with it.

 

Which reminds me...

 

A friend of mine ran two separate DnD 3 campaigns set in the same world for long years. The crafty bastard he is, he carefully arranged that after a while the paths of the two parties crossed and they "happened" to have opposing agendas. After a lot of preparation, a high-level (15+) player character showdown ensued. Now THAT doesn't happen often, characters which were played IRL for years going against other players with similar characters. Anyone care to guess the class of the last man standing?

 

Yep, it was a cleric.

[IndiraLightfoot]

PrimeJunta: You certainly prevail in this discussion by logic!   It's just that bad habits die hard, and I sorta got used to that versatile and over-powered cleric-building. But the most comforting words from people here, seem to be: I need to pick a PE paladin instead. I really hope it's much more fun and versatile than the NWN2 3.5 ed version, though. I've actually rolled up an undead-hating paladin in NWN2 that slowly progresses through the OC, and then side-jumped into Mysteries of Westgate (which I had never played), and then it aims for the big reward at the end of that and some more OC: MotB!

Problem is, paladins in D&D have been so stiff and knight-in-shiny-armour for so long that I have a hard time liking it. And in IWD2, my paladin keeps giving away all the party's hard-earned money, just because he's so darn nice.

[Bryy]

After that, our final class update will be on The Front Line: fighters and barbarians.

I'm assuming either a dwarf and a human or a Godlike and a human. For some odd reason, I don't think we'll get an Aumau warrior. Probably to subvert tropes.

[Sensuki]

Well after hearing that there will definitely be a Fighter companion, looks like that will be revealed in a month's time, with that update.

 

There was no Druid companion listed with the last class update so it is probably going to be Druids and Barbarians (at least) that miss out.

 

But then again, both of those are classes kinda relative to Eir Glanfath. The expansion may take us deeper into the woods?

[teknoman2]

 

 

 

The chanter phrase "Darmok and Jalad at Tenagra" wards off questionable science fiction premises.

 

"Shaka, when the walls fell".

 

 

Wait, so we can write our own chants in-game? SOKATH HIS EYES UNCOVERED 

 

MAMA

JUST KILLED A MAN

 

that adds a minor damage bonus to all allies

if followed by 

PUT A GUN AGAINST HIS HEAD

all guns gain accuracy

PULLED THE TRIGGER NOW HE'S DEAD

adds extra damage on criticals

[PrimeJunta]

Same here, playing PnP roleplays is a great example. The problem is the ability to enjoy playing such a character - supportive or whatnot - and by that I mean ROLE-PLAYING. Now, shifting all aspects of roleplaying (not just battling with enemies) from PnP into cRPG is challenging.

More like "can't be done." PnP is not the same as cRPG.

 

However, mechanically a support class can be extremely rewarding in a cRPG as well. You're the leader -- the one who makes the decisions, gets the attention, and perhaps smooth-talks stuff through... and you're way too important to get your hands dirty beating people up. Instead, you inspire and empower your friends allies servants slaves while intimidating cowing terrorizing your enemies.

Edited May 15, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Quetzalcoatl]

The effect of going against your faith seems to be pretty minimal. Which I guess is pretty understandable to keep role-playing your character viable.

 

 

Why not make the at will powers influenced by the god followed? Why not have priests gain bonuses for spells in their respective gods' dominion (Magran; bonuses for fire + deflection, Berath; bonuses for necromancy, etc.)?  Hell, if you stray to far from the core beliefs of a god, maybe there could be a special heretic or reformer path open up.  As it stands right now, anything that gave the class some identity would be welcome.

This sounds like a very cool idea.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[Messier-31]

More like "can't be done." PnP is not the same as cRPG.

 

True, and never will be; but one can try.

[Mannock]

 

After that, our final class update will be on The Front Line: fighters and barbarians.

I'm assuming either a dwarf and a human or a Godlike and a human. For some odd reason, I don't think we'll get an Aumau warrior. Probably to subvert tropes.

 

 

I'm not certain barbarian will be represented by a joinable NPC.

 

And no, I don't think we will see an Aumau warrior and I don't think it will be a dwarf either (I'm assuming a ranger will be represented by Sagani).

 

So human is my bet.

[Gfted1]

 

 

Bleak Walkers definitely win for most interesting paladin order yet revealed. Yet I have to wonder how their mercilessness is defined, given their stated purpose is "to bring a swift end to conflicts". When the Bleak Walkers are unleashed, are their terms "surrender [under these harsh and non-negotiable terms] or die", or is it too late to even surrender if they are finally called to battle, with the mere threat of their presence used to coerce?

 

Any army/general may surrender after Bleak Walkers are unleashed, but the paladins explicitly do not ask for nor give mercy/surrender.  If a warlord said, "Hey, Bleak Walkers, take out this town," and then halfway through the attack, the ruler of the city tried to surrender, the warlord would have a problem on his hands if he wanted to accept.  Bleak Walkers won't call off an attack even if their "employer" asks them to or turns forces on them.  The Bleak Walkers believe this behavior is necessary to make it clear what is going to happen when they get involved.

 

 

Shock troops. One supposes that the dread that they engender is a two edged sword in a campaign, it may shake the soundest moral and yet due to the inevitability of their actions it may also steel a faltering defenders metal. We cannot surrender to these individuals, let us make an end worth fighting for etcetera.

 

 

 

I wonder if having a Bleak Walker in your party will prevent you from taking prisoners because they will insist on killing them.

[JFSOCC]

2) I once again must praise the tactical design of such abilities as Salvation of Time, which lead to very reactive/emergent decision-making and results in combat.

Agreed! there is tremendous gameplay potential in spells like these! 

 

Lephys, I suggest that you view the priest as an Olympic athlete. If the priest of Deity X talks the talk but fails to walk the walk, then their conviction/faith is lacking and their ability to perform miracles (spells) suffers as would the performance of an Olympic athlete who gives lip service to their training regimen but fails to take seriously the need to train, eat, and sleep in the appropriate manner.

 

Good vs. evil isn't relevant, but proper/improper relative to the tenets of faith belonging to Deity X is most critical. True faith requires conviction and faith is the dynamo for the priest, so lack of conviction results in lack of priestly performance.

I don't know man, there are some pretty disparate ideas of what constitutes a true believer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

 

 

 

 

Bleak Walkers definitely win for most interesting paladin order yet revealed. Yet I have to wonder how their mercilessness is defined, given their stated purpose is "to bring a swift end to conflicts". When the Bleak Walkers are unleashed, are their terms "surrender [under these harsh and non-negotiable terms] or die", or is it too late to even surrender if they are finally called to battle, with the mere threat of their presence used to coerce?

 

Any army/general may surrender after Bleak Walkers are unleashed, but the paladins explicitly do not ask for nor give mercy/surrender.  If a warlord said, "Hey, Bleak Walkers, take out this town," and then halfway through the attack, the ruler of the city tried to surrender, the warlord would have a problem on his hands if he wanted to accept.  Bleak Walkers won't call off an attack even if their "employer" asks them to or turns forces on them.  The Bleak Walkers believe this behavior is necessary to make it clear what is going to happen when they get involved.

 

 

Shock troops. One supposes that the dread that they engender is a two edged sword in a campaign, it may shake the soundest moral and yet due to the inevitability of their actions it may also steel a faltering defenders metal. We cannot surrender to these individuals, let us make an end worth fighting for etcetera.

 

 

 

I wonder if having a Bleak Walker in your party will prevent you from taking prisoners because they will insist on killing them.

 

I think that'll be one of those moments where you might get party conflict, at least. Reading this thread has convinced me, that there is rich story potential for the Bleak Walkers.

[redneckdevil]

Loving the update! I do believe my character is gonna be a chanter )

 

Please, please, please keep the priest mechanoc ingame where if they stray to far from their path. To many games i have run with people playing as clerics and choosing a deity based on the weapon and special abilities they get and then decide to play totally opposite to that deities belief or tenets.

people may think its stiffling roleplaying but instead opens up replayability due to the different options due to which belief u choose.

[Nonek]

Loving the update! I do believe my character is gonna be a chanter )

 

Please, please, please keep the priest mechanoc ingame where if they stray to far from their path. To many games i have run with people playing as clerics and choosing a deity based on the weapon and special abilities they get and then decide to play totally opposite to that deities belief or tenets.

people may think its stiffling roleplaying but instead opens up replayability due to the different options due to which belief u choose.

 

Yes I agree, there's a modern trend of never punishing or having consequences to ones actions in rpg's now, swaddling the player as if he was a child. Seems to go hand in hand with the dumbing down and streamlining of the genre. Personally I regard a game with negative consequences as far more immersive, and usually far more enjoyable and in depth.

[Sensuki]

I don't think there'll be a Bleak Walker companion as there'll only be one Paladin in the game. Who knows what road you can lead Pallegina down though  .

 

You may however have to work with the Bleak Walkers (or against them) on some quests I guess. That would be fun. Help em do something and then get into a moral dilemma over them about to off some people.

[BaronVonChateau]

Just as I hoped, with its implications of collective un/consciousness, the chanter concept is Jungian as heck. I am joy.

[forgottenlor]

 

It's one thing to make classes distinctive, but quite another to make one of them into a "support character". Who wants to be Sancho Panza, when you can be Don Quixote? It's not that the "support character" is a matter of taste here. It's making them a second-class, err, class!

:me raises hand:

 

I'm pretty sure Sancho had more fun than Don Quixote. I've made "support" builds in various cRPG's and had fun with them, e.g. that skillmaster in SoZ I've mentioned several times.

 

I also ran a PnP campaign where one of the players was a noble and high official and everyone else were his retainers or slaves. That worked out really well; the players really jumped into the roles, with the staff doing all kinds of underhanded stuff behind the boss's back, manipulating him, pulling him out of scrapes, and so on and so forth.

 

I.e. I'm very much in favor of the support role for priests. If you want to play a more warlike godlike type, just pick a paladin.

 

Also the D&D3 cleric broke the game. I played them too, a lot, simply because they were so awesomely powerful and versatile -- in fact, the D&D cleric is the closest D&D gets to a classless class as you can build a huge range of perfectly workable and diverse builds with it.

 

Why is this bad? It's bad because it means that every time I built a cleric -- again -- it meant that I didn't build something else. All the effort that went into those other classes was wasted on me.

 

Therefore, it is my strong preference that classes are (1) roughly equal in value, and (2) clearly differentiated. This way I'll get enjoyable gameplay from all of them, not just by finding out which one is best and then sticking with that. Having a clearly overpowered class like a D&D3 cleric is just as bad as having a clearly underpowered one.

 

 

I agree and it seems that the priest is a much more focused "healer" (at least in terms of stamina)  than either the druid or paladin, and he also has some good buffs and a few damage spells. In fact if I wasn't going to use a priest, I'd definately use both a druid and a paladin or chanter just to make sure I'd have enough of an ability to keep the rest of the party on their feet. That makes them in my opinion, definately a good choice in terms of mechanics.

Edited May 15, 2014 by forgottenlor

[rjshae]

The issue I have with the priest isn't so much about power or flexibility (we don't know yet what other directions the class can be nudged) as it is about uninspiring class mechanics.  Compared to the other spell slingers, the Wizard and Druid, the Priest seems to be a bit generic.  The most interesting aspect of the class, the faith based power scale, it shares with paladins.  Not that it's a bad thing, but if there was a way to make faith more integral across the board for the class, it would go a long way towards making Priests interesting to me. 

 

Will Paladins will gain Priest spells? I don't recall that being stated, and if not that's a significant differentiator. The writeup on Paladins explains the other differences between the two faith-based classes.

[Valorian]

 

Let's say I have 18 agility. Will a +3 buff show as 21 or as 21 (+3)?

 

How will buffs stacking work? Will there be a limit on how much a stat can be buffed like in the IE games?

 

There is a Suppressed notice on the first effect line. That is because effects that raise the same stat do not stack (asked, confirmed). Since there are two effects on the character which raise Resolve, only the higher one works, the other one is suppressed. If the buff that provides the higher one ends before the other, the suppression ends as well, and the character gets that lower bonus.

 

 

 

I too am curious about the rules of stacking, but can't find the post.

 

Pallegina's character sheet shows that attribute bonuses (both are from items) don't stack with each other. What about defenses, DT and stamina regeneration?

 

Spells, items and abilities/talents can provide bonuses to various stats. Would a modal ability that increases reflexes by 10 stack with an item or spell that improves reflexes by 5 points?

[SusurrusParadox]

Nice update, these two classes sounds very interesting, especially the chanter class

 

Don't like the Aumauau chanter though, can't tell whether it's a male or a female (leaning more towards a female). I hope (s)he is not a companion though.

Hint: Referring to people as "it" is considered extremely rude and dehumanising.

(No, being fictional doesn't make a difference to it being disrespectful to actual people.)

Also, for future reference, "they" works as a singular third-person pronoun when gender is: unknown, ambiguous, or non-binary.

 

 

On topic, the chanter class definitely sounds interesting.

I also really like the twist on the usual "cleric" class.

To the point that, where I'd normally always play Rogue, I'm kind of interested in the Priest class now.

 

I'd also like to mention that I wholeheartedly approve of the diversity/balance shown thus far in terms of characters.

Nice blend of genders and skintones and subspecies.

(On that note, I'm rather interested in the Death deity seemingly not having a defined gender. It's nice to see that representation [of a sort] of trans/genderqueer identities, even if it is in the form of a mythical spirit-being. Hoping that if that aspect is explored that it's done well and respectfully.)

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I wonder if having a Bleak Walker in your party will prevent you from taking prisoners because they will insist on killing them.

 

I dunno, keeping them for torture or public execution (possibly both!) also seems like a valid option.

[tdphys]

Hah,  Here I thought I'd just lurk PoE until it was released and buy it on steam...

 

But this forum stuff has just sucked me in.

 

I really like the priest faith mechanics,  especially bonus/penalties for following a creed

 

I think the way to really make this an interesting mechanic,  however, is to make the penalized priest a ultimately viable path in it's own right, ie...

 

at some low *piety* or whatever,  allow an option to renounce the faith,  which removes a lot of the class powers/spells, but gives some new ones , in more of an anti-support role.

or else they could pick some other non-based faith class to restart in with some added heretic bonuses.

 

the anti-priest / heretic could have an aura than deadens or sucks up healing/stamina (maybe both ally and enemy) buffs into some kind of rage/heresy bonus that gets applied as random damage on attacks, with a bonus against faith based classes

 

I like the randomness, as a result of instability of losing faith.  Possibly the higher the level,  the greater the bonus ( and the lesser time to specialize in another class).  

 

I'm thinking of some poor heretic now( rogue )  being pushed to distraction by a buch of allies priests healing and erupting in massive damage... doesn't that sound like fun?  

 

standing bonus to attacks against faith based classes

particular bonus against its own order/deity 

 

To me this just adds a great avenue to throw more antagonism / conflict into PoE,  which seems to be the intent of the storyline, and of which I approve