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

[Valorian]

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.

 

They do have a varied list of abilities and I find them interesting in the context of my play-style. I enjoy characters who are exceptionally good at holding the line.

 

However, talents. This:

 

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.

Yes.

The only thing we need to shape the characters we want to play is being able to select talents frequently.

 

Combat style talents at level one would do wonders for customization, I think. If someone wants to play a ranged fighter or rogue, let them select a talent that increases the efficacy of all ranged weapons. Same for dual-wielding, two-handed weapons, weapon and shield and single weapon.

 

 

***

 

Also, I don't think it should be a must for all classes to get talents at the same rate (I suppose this won't be very popular), but what if:

 

Warrior classes (fighter, rogue, barbarian, paladin, ranged, monk) get talents at level 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12.

Caster classes (wizard, chanter, cipher, druid, priest) at level 1, 3, 6, 9, 12.

 

The difference is only 2 talents.

I'd be fine with everyone having access to 7 talents, of course.  

[Sensuki]

and if that means characters should be allowed to select Talents at first level as well, that's fine.

I'll second that.

[Shadenuat]

 

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.

I was thinking you would go hand picking most emblematic abilities and archetypes and, instead of creating a class around just one of them (sneak attacking), there would be a few that could be developed during the game. It's not hard to pick, it's easy to predict that one player might want to play a swashbuckling kinda rogue, while another a skill monkey or an ever popular assassin. These archetypes are ever present in CRPGs and even tabletop.

 

Of course it would mean creating more mechanics than you have - creating a bunch of skills that add already existing afflictions to wounds is probably easy, but creating a placeable trap that shoots arrows at enemies is more difficult.

 

Knowing what players want is not hard, there are already general class thread and talent threads, where players want more combat oriented clerics and ranged fighters. It seems that core classes, mainly fighter, rogue and cleric are in priority for talents, because other classes have new and interesting mechanics or just play more flexible (like Barbarian who is tough, has positioning skill and Rage - that's more interesting than level 5 Fighter has).

Edited September 9, 2014 by Shadenuat

[Labadal]

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.

I have no clue.

[PrimeJunta]

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'm glad you asked. I have posted these elsewhere, but here goes again.

 

I would like the option to build a ranged fighter, minus Mr. Bear. Ranger gameplay is cool, but it's not like a "pure" sniper. It's qualitatively different.

 

I would also like the option to build a "musketeer" -- someone who opens up with a volley, then switches to melee.

 

Currently this does not work very well, because the fighter's talents are so very melee-centric, while the rogue's are about mobility and sneak attack.

 

My proposal would be to open up the fighter class altogether. The current tanky fighter is fine, but I would like to be able to make a damager build, a disabler build, or a ranged build also.

 

Even more specifically --

 

(1) Equalize ranged and melee accuracy, and add talents that let us bump one or the other. Apply this to all classes. I honestly don't see any reason you'd want to railroad any class into specifically melee or specifically ranged. We the players should be making that choice.

(2) Make all the currently built-in fighter talents optional, and let us pick the ones we want from a broader palette.

(3) Add ranged talents. Reuse some from the ranger, add some especially martial ones -- Armor Piercing Shot (2/encounter, ignores DT), Knockdown Shot, Stunning Shot etc. (for ranged build)

(4) Add a Power Attack - Cleave - Great Cleave style sequence (for damager build).

(5) Add a modal talent that reduces Damage but boosts Interrupt. Separate one for melee and ranged if you like.

(6) At higher levels, allow taking the rogue's Escape ability.

 

Basically, I want to feel like I'm building a character, not taking a ready-made template and running with it. While this was more or less how AD&D fighters worked, there was a lot more scope for variation in DnD3, even with vanilla rules. I would really like something like that.

 

I would also like to see the wizard and priest classes similarly broadened in scope. I'm missing enchantment and conjuration spells from the wizard. Perhaps they're not there because you felt it would overlap too much with the cipher (enchantment) and chanter (conjuration); I think that even so it would be worth it to have them. The cipher and chanter could still be the go-to enchanters and summoners, but the wizard should be able to do some of it. The beauty of the wizard in DnD always was the enormous variety of spells; the current selection of blasts and self-buffs with the occasional area debuff just feels one-dimensional.

 

Finally... I think P:E is showing a tremendous amount of promise. Please take it to the finish. I've made a bet that you won't let release slip until 2015, but I will happily lose that wager if it means that sufficient variety and polish can get added.

 

And... thank you for making this.

 

(Edit: as an aside, I just started a BG1 playthrough. I'm still finding it a little dull, but I assure you, the fighter is more versatile in terms of combat role, even on level 1. Specifically in the way he can switch between ranged and melee, damager and tank.)

Edited September 9, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

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.

I have no clue.

 

 

You use trap items from the character's quick items.  You can acquire trap items from traps you disarm if your Mechanics is high enough, but you can also buy them.  I think Matt may have overlooked putting traps for sale in the stores.

[Longknife]

Let's just face facts and admit that no class can possibly compare to the sheer awesomeness and fun factor of playing a Muscle Wizard.

[Shadenuat]

Is there a muscle wizard in game though? Having more Might doesn't make your character actually feel a strong athlete or a combat mage. Everyone who wants do damage in combat should have 15-18 Might, so there is no difference between a wizard in robe who stands at the back or a wizard in front lines. Technically they are one build, the difference is maybe in armor they wear and positioning, not in nature of character built.

[Labadal]

 

 

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.

I have no clue.

 

 

You use trap items from the character's quick items.  You can acquire trap items from traps you disarm if your Mechanics is high enough, but you can also buy them.  I think Matt may have overlooked putting traps for sale in the stores.

 

I just disarmed one while testing different weapons/spells and their effects on hard (Blood Legacy Quest dungeon.).

[Stun]

Let's just face facts and admit that no class can possibly compare to the sheer awesomeness and fun factor of playing a Muscle Wizard.

I explicitly disagree. I didn't find my 'muscle wizard' very 'awesome' to play at all. They felt solid and viable enough up front, but there's something about their spells. They don't...'fit' the build style, aside from maybe the mirror image line of buffs.

 

I miss haste, and stoneskin, and invisibility and fireshield, and other Gish staples of the build.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Stun

[J.E. Sawyer]

Wizards have access to PoE equivalents of all those spells except Invisibility.

[Valorian]

I like melee and ranged accuracy being separated.

 

Also, because this has almost become another talent suggestions thread...

 

Since I don't enjoy swapping weapons in combat I'd appreciate a trade-off talent that permanently removes a weapon set slot (or 2, for a greater bonus) and grants a hefty combat bonus.

 

 

Let's just face facts and admit that no class can possibly compare to the sheer awesomeness and fun factor of playing a Muscle Wizard.

 

You're hurting my soul.

[rjshae]

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.

 

I'd like for Fighters to have Talents that allow them to disrupt a static line of battle (beyond simply attacking an opponent). D&D had those in the form of Bull Rush and Overrun. Being able to penetrate a wall of defenders would present some interesting tactical options for a Fighter.

[Labadal]

Yes, I am not asking for the PoE fighter to be the most versatile class ever, I would just like to have him be more than a meatshield.

[Sensuki]

I just think Monks would be better suited to being the guys that draw aggro as their class mechanics demand it, whereas Fighters having the ability to put out reliable consistent damage with either melee or ranged weapons would be nice.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Sensuki

[Shadenuat]

Wizards have access to PoE equivalents of all those spells except Invisibility.

Some of them seem to do same thing though, like increasing Deflection proprotionally to spell level, unlike IE versions. Seems like it's easier to just pop Arcane Veil since it's same thing but with higher number.

 

I also feel discouraged to spend 3+ rounds on prebuffing during combat while I could use dd or cc spells instead.

[Gfted1]

Some of them seem to do same thing though, like increasing Deflection proprotionally to spell level, unlike IE versions. Seems like it's easier to just pop Arcane Veil since it's same thing but with higher number.

I think that's because spells don't scale in PoE. So, you wind up with a bunch of versions of the same spell, just slightly more powerful then the last.

[Labadal]

I just think Monks would be better suited to being the guys that draw aggro as their class mechanics demand it, whereas Fighters having the ability to put out reliable consistent damage with either melee or ranged weapons would be nice.

The monk was decent at doing that on Normal, but I think he would get wrecked on Hard. I don't know if i am playing wrong, but the barbarian I am playing right now is not faring well on hard. The fighter and rogue are doing much better in melee engagement.

[J.E. Sawyer]

There's Wizard's Double and Mirrored Images, the various Restore _____ Stamina spells, and Insect Swarm and Plague of Insects.  I don't think there are that many "series" spells overall.

 

The relative Deflection values of Arcane Veil, WD, and MI do need to be adjusted.  MI is supposed to be the longest-lasting but provides the lowest bonus.  Arcane Veil is supposed to be the fastest to cast with high DT and a relatively short duration.

[Shadenuat]

I think that's because spells don't scale in PoE. So, you wind up with a bunch of versions of the same spell, just slightly more powerful then the last.

In 5th edition D&D they added a p. cool feature, allowing to cast lower level spells by expending high level slots. Like to cast 5d4+5 magic missile you need to spend 5th level spell slot.

 

 

I don't think there are that many "series" spells overall.

There aren't enough to say "all spells are just copies of themselves from 1st level", but some spells seem to repeat themselves through levels just to keep up with increasing numbers. Minoletta's missiles get an improved version once or twice where in IE one was sufficient, druid has two almost same sun spells at level 1&2 (and Sunlance at level 6 or around that), there are 3 Blight Summons (one can only hope creatures would get new abilities), cleric gets three sigils with some difference in them (knockback... that I think doesn't work; fire; shock).

It also seems lots of work has been done to "check" every damage type; while only ~2 should be sufficient; Druid, for example, gets damaging spells from fire, corrosion, piercing, slashing & cold at level 1 alone. What's up with that.

 

Some of them follow the general principle of course (we are used to have various healing spells avaible through levels), but sometimes you look at a spell and think "well, that's just same as that one I had level before it".

[GreyFox]

 

Some of them seem to do same thing though, like increasing Deflection proprotionally to spell level, unlike IE versions. Seems like it's easier to just pop Arcane Veil since it's same thing but with higher number.

I think that's because spells don't scale in PoE. So, you wind up with a bunch of versions of the same spell, just slightly more powerful then the last.

 

 

How's that working out so far?

 

I didn't like that idea when I first heard it so I was curious if you reach a point where your level 1/2 spells become pretty useless?

 

Seems natural to me that spells would increase in potency(up to a max) as you level up.

Edited September 9, 2014 by GreyFox

[J.E. Sawyer]

There aren't enough to say "all spells are just copies of themselves from 1st level", but some spells seem to repeat themselves through levels just to keep up with increasing numbers. Minoletta's missiles get an improved version once or twice where in IE one was sufficient, druid has two almost same sun spells at level 1&2 (and Sunlance at level 6 or around that), there are 3 Blight Summons (one can only hope creatures would get new abilities), cleric gets three sigils with some difference in them (knockback... that I think doesn't work; fire; shock).

It also seems lots of work has been done to "check" every damage type; while only ~2 should be sufficient; Druid, for example, gets damaging spells from fire, corrosion, piercing, slashing & cold at level 1 alone. What's up with that.

 

Some of them follow the general principle of course (we are used to have various healing spells avaible through levels), but sometimes you look at a spell and think "well, that's just same as that one I had level before it".

 

The Minoletta's spells are not improved versions of each other.  Bounding Missiles and Concussive Missiles do different things than Minor Missiles.  More importantly, you probably would not use them in the same circumstances.  Sunlance (single-target, Deflection-based, Pierce and Burn damage) is not an improved version of Sunbeam (AoE, Reflexes-based, Burn damage and Fortitude-based Blind affliction).

 

Yes, druids have three levels of blight summons.  BG's druids had three levels of animal summons.

[Yonjuro]

 

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. 

 

 

 Currently, stealth applies to the whole party. Rogues would get a lot more interesting if stealth was individual and could be used during a fight for better tactical positioning.

[Matt516]

 

 

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. 

 

 

 Currently, stealth applies to the whole party. Rogues would get a lot more interesting if stealth was individual and could be used during a fight for better tactical positioning.

 

 

Seconded. Isn't stealth kind of broken though at the moment? With the sizes of the circles depending on not only your own stealth rating but the ratings of your other party members as well. Is this by design, Josh? If so, what's the reason for it? (no combative tone intended, just curious)

[Elerond]

 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 Currently, stealth applies to the whole party. Rogues would get a lot more interesting if stealth was individual and could be used during a fight for better tactical positioning.

 

 

Seconded. Isn't stealth kind of broken though at the moment? With the sizes of the circles depending on not only your own stealth rating but the ratings of your other party members as well. Is this by design, Josh? If so, what's the reason for it? (no combative tone intended, just curious)

 

 

In my understanding skill requirement for default size of ring depend on average perception of enemies and maybe average stealth skill in your party. And then character's personal skill/perception tells how much smaller/larger character's ring is than default ring. This is in my understanding done because they want to work with stealth and perception that are between certain limits and so that higher level areas need higher stealth skill than lower level areas.