Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring

[Gfted1]

Lets stay on topic and direct responses to the posts and not the posters, please.

[Gromnir]

point o' clarification:

 

"But that's only because you've been giving far too much importance to that moment: developers name minor characters after their obnoxious neighbour, dog, or favourite hooker all the time. So get a grip, man."

 

we have always corrected folks when they suggested that Gromnir earned inclusion in tob or similar such nonsense. in our case, the developers were gonna do a small joke encounter in bg2 (or such were our expectation,) but the maps got cut, so dave gaider expanded our character's role in tob. nevertheless, we have invariably respond to people who suggest we earned a cameo by telling such folks that they is wrong. sorry, but you is gonna need some other reason to get your panties in a twist.

 

or, in the alternative, 

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 26, 2014 by Gromnir

[Hatred]

That "unfairness" is something Josh, Feargus, Adler and the rest were aware of from the start. As soon as they launched the KS, and basing it fully on being "a spiritual successor of the IE games", they brought it on themselves. I reckon, that ambition was a perfect one, and I don't think they regret it for one minute. But like Josh said in that RPGCodex interview with Sensuki, regarding combat complexity in PoE vs the IE games, this will take time. It's precisely like you say: so much ground work, so much tradition and systems to build upon in BG2 or BG:EE, but here they are building a lot from scratch. Personally, I think they have over-complicated things here. OE could have had so much stuff for free, stuff that they are very familiar with, but ambition may have gotten the better of them. Only time will tell.

 

Wouldn't they have to pay licensing fees to use DnD ? If they make PoE and it leads to an expansion and a PoE 2 then they have made something they own which they can use for free in the future. Using DnD as the basis for the game would mean having to work on an IP they don't own. Most people liked F:NV, but it doesn't look like OE is going to get another shot at Fallout because they don't own it. 

[Captain Shrek]

 

That "unfairness" is something Josh, Feargus, Adler and the rest were aware of from the start. As soon as they launched the KS, and basing it fully on being "a spiritual successor of the IE games", they brought it on themselves. I reckon, that ambition was a perfect one, and I don't think they regret it for one minute. But like Josh said in that RPGCodex interview with Sensuki, regarding combat complexity in PoE vs the IE games, this will take time. It's precisely like you say: so much ground work, so much tradition and systems to build upon in BG2 or BG:EE, but here they are building a lot from scratch. Personally, I think they have over-complicated things here. OE could have had so much stuff for free, stuff that they are very familiar with, but ambition may have gotten the better of them. Only time will tell.

 

Wouldn't they have to pay licensing fees to use DnD ? If they make PoE and it leads to an expansion and a PoE 2 then they have made something they own which they can use for free in the future. Using DnD as the basis for the game would mean having to work on an IP they don't own. Most people liked F:NV, but it doesn't look like OE is going to get another shot at Fallout because they don't own it. 

 

 

 

SRD? Somebody knows details? 

[Bryy]

[old skool defence speech]

 

  Masterpieces don't need progress. You don't improve chess!

 

[/old skool defence speech]

What if Leonardo drew Mona Lisa as a man?

[Karkarov]

 

[old skool defence speech]

 

  Masterpieces don't need progress. You don't improve chess!

 

[/old skool defence speech]

What if Leonardo drew Mona Lisa as a man?

 

It would explain the smile.

[constantine]

No, but you can CERTAINLY improve Baldur's Gate. :ducks:

BG did so many things right that the things it did wrong didn't matter as much.

 

 

Still, what I expect from PoE is to be the *improved* BG

Edited October 18, 2014 by constantine

[b0rsuk]

I haven't played the Backer Beta, but even I reached similar conclusion by reading the wiki. Fighter seems to be a one trick pony - a "tank". More generally, most classes might take more micromanagement in combat, which I like, but they seem to be designed around a specific role in a party.

 

This will have some consequences I haven't seen mentioned yet:

- Fighter duels could become terrible slogs, because they're designed as damage sponges

- unbalanced parties are going to suffer. You may say it's a dumb idea to form a party with 3 Fighters in it, but it's sometimes very thematic. For example, a band of questing knights, or brigands ambushing caravans.

 

Try to imagine Baldur's Gate 1 on PoE system. There's an area where you encounter a bunch of radical Druids, who put nature first even if it means some humans have to be killed. They attack you, and... it turns out Druids are designed for crowd control ! When you send 2 strong barbarians and retreat the rest of the party, and I assume 4 druids can't do much about that because they're designed for crowd control.

 

I fear the system is designed with "1 of each role" parties in mind. Classes may be effective at what they do, but not self-sufficient. If I'm tired of "Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Priest" parties are you going to punish me ? If I create a "back to roots" party like "2 fighters, 1 barbarian, 1 rogue, 1 monk, 1 ranger" are you going to punish me for focusing on melee, physical damage, no magic support AND no crowd control ?

If I create a team of 1 Fighter, 1 Rogue, 1 Wizard, 1 Druid, 1 Priest, 1 Ranger, will I be completely unable to split the party in 2 teams of three to perform a Pincer attack ? With only 1 Fighter in the party, and no one else being able to hold his own in melee.

 

Why do I call this "back to roots" ? Because I consider the roots of RPG games to be fantasy books, not D&D. Even D&D was heavily inspired by books like Dying Earth(magic system) or Fafhrd&Grey Mouser (Thieves' Guild). In fantasy books, you very rarely have very balanced parties or 2 spellcasters (such as X, Y, wizard, priest). In fantasy books, everyone is pulling his weight in combat. Gandalf - the archetypical wizard - fights with a sword, Legolas, a great archer doesn't shy away from cutting orcs with a long knife. Conan the Barbarian from books can use any weapon, frequently a ranged one, commonly sneaks around and can be seen backstabbing "bosses", knows when to fight and when to run, is clearly intelligent (but not talkative), cautious and plans ahead. When faced with magic, he prefers to avoid it or uses amulets prepared earlier for a specific circumstance. Conan from books if far from the one-dimensional brutes of D&D.

Roles of party members in books change dynamically because every fight is different, there are ambushes and unpredictable situations. And frankly, a wizard and an archer raining death from behind two meatshields in every single battle would be awfully boring to read about.

 

Heavy specialization in fantasy books came later, and is the strongest in books known to be based on P&P RPG sessions. Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms and Malazan serries are a great example.

 

In Pillars of Eternity, will I be able to create a party of individually competent and largely interchangeable people who can adapt to many situations, or will each class perform only 1 role for the whole game ?