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

[Zansatsu]

Well when your favorite type of character is the dullest to play, it can be..less entertaining. I am not a big lover of spell caster, although I understand there value. Just my preference.

[konst3d]

[old skool defence speech]

 

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

 

[/old skool defence speech]

PoE is not yet a masterpiece in any kind.

BG's mechanic was good at 1998, but D&D was significantly improved since then. You can't create a masterpiece giving a player less freedom and character development options then in far 1998.

[Hamenaglar]

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

 

True. But there is a good argument to be made that PoE isn't improving, but actually regressing. I don't consider myself a fanboy of AD&D (actually I prefer 3.5 significantly), but a lot of the changes that OE is making from IE games I don't like.

[Sir Newbie]

Why is there so much hate or at least distrust ? At this time the game is still too buggy to give it a fair critic. But people can at least admit that now fighters will do their job at holding the line. Does anyone remember having to make his wizard run like in a Benny Hill's sketch because a trash mob bypass a front-line of 4 fighters  ? Anyone ? Just for that the developers deserve a bit of trust. At least they will have a bit of micro-management before the level 20 (or any first high-level with peculiar abilities) or before obtaining magical items.

 

I don't know about boring but at least they have more options than the fighters in BG1 enough with the hypocrisy (or "mauvaise foi"). Maybe they need a bit of tweaking or 1/2 skills to make them competent at ranged fighting i don't know but at least it's an improvement (no more Benny Hill's wizard !!)

 

The rogues are a different matter but the idea of inflicting sneak attack under any advantageous conditions and a true evading skill add a lot of tactical options.

 

Just my humble opinion.  

[konst3d]

Why is there so much hate or at least distrust ? At this time the game is still too buggy to give it a fair critic. But people can at least admit that now fighters will do their job at holding the line. Does anyone remember having to make his wizard run like in a Benny Hill's sketch because a trash mob bypass a front-line of 4 fighters  ? Anyone ? Just for that the developers deserve a bit of trust. At least they will have a bit of micro-management before the level 20 (or any first high-level with peculiar abilities) or before obtaining magical items.

 

I don't know about boring but at least they have more options than the fighters in BG1 enough with the hypocrisy (or "mauvaise foi"). Maybe they need a bit of tweaking or 1/2 skills to make them competent at ranged fighting i don't know but at least it's an improvement (no more Benny Hill's wizard !!)

 

The rogues are a different matter but the idea of inflicting sneak attack under any advantageous conditions and a true evading skill add a lot of tactical options.

 

Just my humble opinion.  

Any *right* wizard or sorcerer should have mage armor, stone skin, blur, protection from arrows, mirror image and a lot of other things that allow him to stay in the center of trash mobs group and killing them being almost invulnerable.

[Hamenaglar]

Why is there so much hate or at least distrust ? At this time the game is still too buggy to give it a fair critic. But people can at least admit that now fighters will do their job at holding the line. Does anyone remember having to make his wizard run like in a Benny Hill's sketch because a trash mob bypass a front-line of 4 fighters  ? Anyone ? Just for that the developers deserve a bit of trust. At least they will have a bit of micro-management before the level 20 (or any first high-level with peculiar abilities) or before obtaining magical items.

 

 

Nope. Never had that problem in IE games. Quite the contrary.

 

Also I don't see anything wrong with enemies trying to bypass the front line to get to the squishies. It's quite common military strategy (breaching through flanks or center to attack targets behind enemy lines). Hell it's the whole point of the defensive line in American Football. Not to mention that I was always looking to attack enemy spellcasters first, and only then melees. But no I never had an issue with an opposition melee guy targeting my wizard if I positioned my party correctly.

 

 

I don't know about boring but at least they have more options than the fighters in BG1 enough with the hypocrisy (or "mauvaise foi"). Maybe they need a bit of tweaking or 1/2 skills to make them competent at ranged fighting i don't know but at least it's an improvement (no more Benny Hill's wizard !!)

 

 

More options. Apparently all that fighter can do is hold the line. In BG1 you could at least have them specialize for defense and Armor class, offense and damage or ranged combat. BG2 with kits is on a whole different level. And we shouldn't even be comparing BG1 with PoE. Let's compare BG2 and NWN games. Josh could have decided to build on those games, instead he decided he "knows better" (this is purely my impression, but this is how it looks like to me).

[rjshae]

Well when your favorite type of character is the dullest to play, it can be..less entertaining. I am not a big lover of spell caster, although I understand there value. Just my preference.

 

Possibly the play of the Fighter and Rogue will benefit from the Talents they haven't added in yet...

[Sir Newbie]

 

Any *right* wizard or sorcerer should have mage armor, stone skin, blur, protection from arrows, mirror image and a lot of other things that allow him to stay in the center of trash mobs group and killing them being almost invulnerable.

 

In the first levels you never had that problem when you started BG1 ? never ? really ? I mean it takes a bit of time before obtaining a decent spellbook or even to get to level 3. Invulnerable in the first levels maybe for a veteran gamer but i would never put a low level mage in the front line, my fighters are here for that so my mage only have to cast protection spells against other spells and projectiles.

 

"Also I don't see anything wrong with enemies trying to bypass the front line to get to the squishies."

 

I am talking about a goblin who i don't know how succeed to pass between 3 fighters to get to your mage without any retaliation. First playthrough that problem was a huge pain in my back. I admit it's a common tactic but it infuriated me to see a goblin (BG1 no goblin i know but at least i spell it right) walk casually between my fighters, no damage although my fighters were targeting him (and yes i use right weapons) and get to my wizard.

 

Now with the engagement mechanics it will not be possible and you will have the feeling of controlling the battlefield. Enemies will need to knock you back, to have special abilities to break through your line of fighters without retaliations. In american football, think about a grandpa who walk casually with the ball in his hand, "break"/bypass/walk through a front-line of defense of pro-players and score a touch-down... 

 

If trash mobs break my formation or bypass it, i want it to be because of poor tactics from me or good AI from them. With PoE the grandpa need to be younger faster and to use a special abilities to knock back, evade, flank etc the front-line defender to score a touch down.

 

I agree plenty to the idea of adding more options to the fighters (i will learn to multi-quote) and rogue.

But still i like the progress from the old DnD rule-set. It is more efficient ? I don't know. Perfect ? no without a doubt. Perfectible ? surely. Maybe it has flaws, but it felt nice and fresh to me. I like the general directions of this system.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Sir Newbie

[Zansatsu]

 

Well when your favorite type of character is the dullest to play, it can be..less entertaining. I am not a big lover of spell caster, although I understand there value. Just my preference.

 

Possibly the play of the Fighter and Rogue will benefit from the Talents they haven't added in yet...

Well I like the rogue ATM and don't think it is boring so I'm not worried there. I honestly notice people forgetting to use the rogues abilities all together and just have them using ranged weapons, so atm people are completely waisting them and seem to miss the point. Fighters may improve but given the objective set by OE to be front line and on auto pilot I don't see them getting more interesting but maybe. I simply prefer fewer classes with flexibility in play as apposed to super specialized. But as was pointed out this is not single hero but party combat so I imagine fighters won't change much. That's fine. Edited September 8, 2014 by Zansatsu

[Sarex]

[old skool defence speech]

 

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

 

[/old skool defence speech]

 

Wasn't chess improved a bunch of times?

[IndiraLightfoot]

*A disembodied voice from above*

 

"You have passed the test. Please enter the inner sanctum of the select few with deeper insight and knowledge." 

[konst3d]

 

 

Any *right* wizard or sorcerer should have mage armor, stone skin, blur, protection from arrows, mirror image and a lot of other things that allow him to stay in the center of trash mobs group and killing them being almost invulnerable.

 

In the first levels you never had that problem when you started BG1 ? never ? really ? I mean it takes a bit of time before obtaining a decent spellbook or even to get to level 3. Invulnerable in the first levels maybe for a veteran gamer but i would never put a low level mage in the front line, my fighters are here for that so my mage only have to cast protection spells against other spells and projectiles.

 

"Also I don't see anything wrong with enemies trying to bypass the front line to get to the squishies."

 

I am talking about a goblin who i don't know how succeed to pass between 3 fighters to get to your mage without any retaliation. First playthrough that problem was a huge pain in my back. I admit it's a common tactic but it infuriated me to see a goblin (BG1 no goblin i know but at least i spell it right) walk casually between my fighters, no damage although my fighters were targeting him (and yes i use right weapons) and get to my wizard.

 

Now with the engagement mechanics it will not be possible and you will have the feeling of controlling the battlefield. Enemies will need to knock you back, to have special abilities to break through your line of fighters without retaliations. In american football, think about a grandpa who walk casually with the ball in his hand, "break"/bypass/walk through a front-line of defense of pro-players and score a touch-down... 

 

If trash mobs break my formation or bypass it, i want it to be because of poor tactics from me or good AI from them. With PoE the grandpa need to be younger faster and to use a special abilities to knock back, evade, flank etc the front-line defender to score a touch down.

 

I agree plenty to the idea of adding more options to the fighters (i will learn to multi-quote) and rogue.

But still i like the progress from the old DnD rule-set. It is more efficient ? I don't know. Perfect ? no without a doubt. Perfectible ? surely. Maybe it has flaws, but it felt nice and fresh to me. I like the general directions of this system.

 

First of all, the 'weak caster' problem exists on some few first levels. Reaching level 2-3 mages start getting access to really good protection spells. As for me it's 3-4 hours of gameplay in average. Also this problem is mostly exists in BG1 and IWD1, in later games caster levels much faster, and very fast they become more powerful and tanky than most of the melee classes.

This means that 'bodyguard-and-nothing-else' fighter could become really boring in a few hours of gameplay. At the moment PoE fighters looks exactly 'bodyguard-and-nothing-else' as for me. Hope I'm wrong.

Well, to be honest I don't know how powerful and tanky will be PoE casters and for how long they will require fighter-bodyguards, but I'm afraid they also will not be that fighter-dependent. After all you could use other classes for an 'occasional tanking', classes that could do not only this.

Now about engaging\disengaging mechanic (if I spelled this right). In IE games you was always able to block narrow passages with your characters, usually fighters\clerics\druids and other tanks. Also starting with D&D 3 (NWN1\2) edition there is an "Attacks of Opportunity" thing and as for me, "Engaging\Disengaging" is just a limited variation of this feature (not sure this will be free attacks against people trying to cast\use items\ranged weapon in a melee range).

 

Just my personal opinion, but class that could not be customized - is boring class.

There will be a party of 6 (?) characters in PoE, so you have an opportunity to test all of the PoE class in a one walkthrough. And now, if you have already tried all of them and there is no option to create a main hero fighter that will differ with your NPC fighter - what is the point to play the game once again with fighter or any other class you have tried as NPC during your first walkthrough (except some optional plot\quest elements)?

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

Just my personal opinion, but class that could not be customized - is boring class.

There will be a party of 6 (?) characters in PoE, so you have an opportunity to test all of the PoE class in a one walkthrough. And now, if you have already tried all of them and there is no option to create a main hero fighter that will differ with your NPC fighter - what is the point to play the game once again with fighter or any other class you have tried as NPC during your first walkthrough (except some optional plot\quest elements)?

 

^This times a thousand! It will hurt replayablilty big time, if the classes are but one-trick ponies.

Edited September 9, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Silent Winter]

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

Yes, Baldur's gate would be much better with ducks (*grumble* silly chickens and their quests */grumble*)

 

[old skool defence speech]

 

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

 

[/old skool defence speech]

Unless you add ducks ... or pizza and beer - yeah , chess is better with pizza and beer ... or was that cheese?

[IndiraLightfoot]

A pizza-eating duck with a knack for beer cheese will improve the game considerably. Its burps are legendary, or should I say, GURPs?

[Stun]

HI guys. I'm Mr. Minority opinion.

 

And I'd just like to say: "NO. I don't want my Rogues and fighters to have a bajillion super-special attacks. I want them to remain "pure". (there's enough party micro-management going on already). Also, I found playing a rogue quite fun. As it stands, I actually had more fun with my Rogue-run in this beta than I did with my mage playthrough.

 

If they must tweak them, I'd like it if they just made the rogue sneak attack do more damage than it already does. I was under the impression that Rogues are one of the "heavy hitters". But I'm really not seeing it (in the beta at least). My rogue seemed to do as much damage on average as my Barbarian and fighter did.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Stun

[J.E. Sawyer]

I never thought that mr. Sawyer would be one of those creators who think their making is the best thing that was ever created since the last thing they made. If now he is disagreeing with everybody that have any critical view, then when the game will be released and not do well we will hear that people were not ready for his grateness. Really dissapointing.

 

Do people really believe that I disagree with everyone who has a critical view?  I'm not going to change things that I don't think people have made a compelling argument for, but we've changed a lot of things based on backer feedback.  Of note, one of the people who liked your post really had a problem with the lack of offensive abilities on paladins.  That's why paladins now have Flames of Devotion and Sworn Enemy.

 

I don't think it's particularly useful to argue about whether or not fighters and rogues are subjectively "boring", but we can productively talk about whether or not they have a varied list of abilities and, just as important, if they are tactically interesting to use in the context of PoE's combat.  If people say things like BG's fighters and rogues felt more versatile, of course I'm going to argue against that because I don't think BG's fighters and rogues were very versatile.  BG:EE and BG2's fighters and rogues (with kits) were much more versatile than BG's, but that's a different statement entirely.

[J.E. Sawyer]

If they must tweak them, I'd like it if they just made the rogue sneak attack do more damage than it already does. I was under the impression that Rogues are one of the "heavy hitters". But I'm really not seeing it (in the beta at least). My rogue seemed to do as much damage on average as my Barbarian and fighter did.

 

Just to make sure, was the rogue Sneak Attacking?  That's where the majority of their damage potential comes from, though they can score it on targets with a wide variety of afflictions (Flanked, Stunned, Prone, etc.).

 

E: Sorry, misread your post.  They currently do +50% damage on a SA, IIRC.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

 

Do people really believe that I disagree with everyone who has a critical view?  

 

BG:EE and BG2's fighters and rogues (with kits) were much more versatile than BG's, but that's a different statement entirely.

 

Unfortunately some people do. I am certainly not one of them.

 

And yeah, with the class kits, the BG:EE fighter and rogue classes become much more varied. I've said it before: Since the attributes currently are so feather-weight, the need for a nice assorted collection of abilities to pick from is more pressing in order to feel that you get to make distinct fighters and rogues, at least as long as no class kits will be introduced to the mix. Ideally, I'd love to be able to make several fighters in my party, and feel that they are different from the get-go, at least a tiny bit.

Edited September 9, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Shadenuat]

 

If people say things like BG's fighters and rogues felt more versatile, of course I'm going to argue against that because I don't think BG's fighters and rogues were very versatile.  BG:EE and BG2's fighters and rogues (with kits) were much more versatile than BG's, but that's a different statement entirely.

When people bring up BG classes more often than not they are talking about BG2, and overall feeling of class in BGT (Trilogy), not vanilla BG.

 

In that sense when we look at PoE rogues we compare him with BGT thieves, including kits, utility skills - picking pockets, disarming and setting traps, detecting illusions, and ability to go into stealth during combat, supported by powerful BG2 itemization, HLAs in ToB and, of course, dual and multi classing.

Compared to that PoE thief with a per-encounter evade ability and a set of press button for more DPS abilities can pale to our experiences we had with Thieves in BGT.

[Sensuki]

I don't think it's particularly useful to argue about whether or not fighters and rogues are subjectively "boring", but we can productively talk about whether or not they have a varied list of abilities and, just as important, if they are tactically interesting to use in the context of PoE's combat.  If people say things like BG's fighters and rogues felt more versatile, of course I'm going to argue against that because I don't think BG's fighters and rogues were very versatile.  BG:EE and BG2's fighters and rogues (with kits) were much more versatile than BG's, but that's a different statement entirely.

I think I've already posted this on Something Awful but the reason I have said that Fighters (especially) are more flexible in the Infinity Engine games is because they are not required to be the main tank. In Pillars of Eternity, if you are not running your Fighter into the thick of melee to aggro as many enemies as possible you are not playing it properly. His abilities reflect this as well. Your Fighter is likely equipped in the heaviest armor because each hit soaks up the damage that the enemies are doing and reduces their damage by the greatest amount. If as many enemies as possible are attacking your Fighter in his high armor, they are going to be doing less overall DPS to your party because of the damage reduced by DT.

 

In the Infinity Engine games, Fighters were not *required* as much to take this role, you could have the Fighter as an archer, and you could also use him as the guy who beelined through the enemy lines to kill the most important DPSer first - an archer or a Wizard for example, and another class such as the Paladin, Barbarian, Priest (or Minsc) would take the central tanking role.

 

To me it seems like if there's any class that wants to be designed around holding aggro it's probably the Monk due to their reliance on being hit by enemies.

 

I just find the rogue a bit less exciting because 95% of the time he just auto attacks, I expected the Rogue to be a bit more active. I do like the fact that they require tactical positioning.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Sensuki

[J.E. Sawyer]

If the issue were simply that I needed to write a bunch of Talents or different Abilities, there wouldn't be much of an issue, really.  This is the first game in what will (hopefully) be a series, and is intended to parallel Baldur's Gate I / Icewind Dale I in terms of overall character scope.  I don't blame people for wanting stand-ins for every spell, ability, feat, talent, and item from every IE game to be present in PoE, but I hope people can all recognize that there are logistical problems with making that actually happen.

 

What I would like to do (and always wanted to do) is allow all characters, not just rogues and fighters, to have more options via Talents -- and if that means characters should be allowed to select Talents at first level as well, that's fine.  But we still need to actually implement them.  The issue has never been that we don't have ideas for Talents (we have a doc full of them), but we have scope limitations.  The classes that people feel are most in need of versatility will have priority for Talents, so if people would like to discuss the specific ways in which they would like to see fighters and rogues (for example) change, that would be helpful to know.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Fighters: I'm not sure this is even a possibility, but at least a split between ranged fighter, sword-and-board fighter, 2-weapon fighter and 1-weapon specialist fighter.

 

Rogues: If we at least would get a sneakier, less "fighter-like" rogue, and then a powerful assassin kind of Corvo-rogue, I'd be happy.

Edited September 9, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Labadal]

If the issue were simply that I needed to write a bunch of Talents or different Abilities, there wouldn't be much of an issue, really.  This is the first game in what will (hopefully) be a series, and is intended to parallel Baldur's Gate I / Icewind Dale I in terms of overall character scope.  I don't blame people for wanting stand-ins for every spell, ability, feat, talent, and item from every IE game to be present in PoE, but I hope people can all recognize that there are logistical problems with making that actually happen.

 

What I would like to do (and always wanted to do) is allow all characters, not just rogues and fighters, to have more options via Talents -- and if that means characters should be allowed to select Talents at first level as well, that's fine.  But we still need to actually implement them.  The issue has never been that we don't have ideas for Talents (we have a doc full of them), but we have scope limitations.  The classes that people feel are most in need of versatility will have priority for Talents, so if people would like to discuss the specific ways in which they would like to see fighters and rogues (for example) change, that would be helpful to know.

I use the rogue the least of all my characters. On every run I have done in the BB beta, she is always the one that does the least damage because she is so squishy. She gets a ranged weapon and then she stays back when I play. The abilities she has are useful, but she feels a bit boring to have around. Also, I am not sure when she sneak attacks.

 

She has her advantages, sure, but I miss the laying of traps, being the specialist as a utility character outside of combat and so on.

 

I guess this is because the skill system in PoE differs very much from the IE games. Only five skills is the biggest letdown to me, even if we have known about this for a very long time.

 

The fighters are tanks in PoE. That's the only use I see for them. The first thing I do in every fight, is send him into the heat and then plan from there. I see no reason for him to do anything else. granted, I mostly used my fighter in the same way in the IE games, but I didn't do it in every fight.

[Sensuki]

How do you even set traps in PE? I haven't figured that out yet. Supposedly every character should be able to using the Mechanics skill.