Poll on preferred party size

[rheingold]

To be honest with potential multi classing I don't strictly mind 5 characters in a party. My issue is more related to the proportion of npcs to party slots. Not really a fan of leaving an entire party sitting twiddling their thumbs at base, also I'd prefer less but better written companions, so I kinda think that 7npcs would work well with 6 slots but if there are only 5 slots available in total I'd prefer 6 npcs. So I see the whole party limit as being related to how many companions are available, the more of them the larger the party should be.

[JerekKruger]

To be honest with potential multi classing I don't strictly mind 5 characters in a party. My issue is more related to the proportion of npcs to party slots. Not really a fan of leaving an entire party sitting twiddling their thumbs at base, also I'd prefer less but better written companions, so I kinda think that 7npcs would work well with 6 slots but if there are only 5 slots available in total I'd prefer 6 npcs. So I see the whole party limit as being related to how many companions are available, the more of them the larger the party should be.

 

I can understand this concern definitely, and I do hope that there'll be an easy base of operations where we can regularly go and have a chat with our companions, including those we don't bring adventuring with us. Of course, we'll still miss out on any banter they might have had whilst travelling with us, but short of having exactly the same number of companions as party slots this will always be something of a problem, and seven companions to four slots is a better ratio than PoE's eleven companions to five slots and a lot better than BG2's 17:5 and BG1's ~a billion:5.

[LordCrash]

I can't understand how some people can claim that they loved Infinity Engine CRPGs while they also claim that they didn't love Baldur's Gate 2. For me, this is and ever will be a contradiction. There never was a better CRPG ever before and there wasn't a better CRPG ever after (until now at least).

Edited February 4, 2017 by LordCrash

[Fenixp]

I can't understand how some people can claim that they loved Infinity Engine CRPGs while they also claim that they didn't love Baldur's Gate 2.

There was 5 cRPGs released on Infinity Engine, 4 of which were wildly different (BG1 is very different from BG2, IWD1 and 2 are their own thing, PS: T is its own thing)

 

I enjoyed Baldur's Gate for semi-open world exploration, Icewind Dale 1+2 for fun dungeon crawling and PS: T for excellent writing. BG2 dropped semi-open world exploration from the original and only kept the writing that I perceived as "Meh" so there you go.

 

Luckily, PoE is mostly a mixture of BG exploration, IWD dungeon crawling and PS: T - styled writing, so I'm all on board there.

[LordCrash]

 

I can't understand how some people can claim that they loved Infinity Engine CRPGs while they also claim that they didn't love Baldur's Gate 2.

There was 5 cRPGs released on Infinity Engine, 4 of which were wildly different (BG1 is very different from BG2, IWD1 and 2 are their own thing, PS: T is its own thing)

 

I enjoyed Baldur's Gate for semi-open world exploration, Icewind Dale 1+2 for fun dungeon crawling and PS: T for excellent writing. BG2 dropped semi-open world exploration from the original and only kept the writing that I perceived as "Meh" so there you go.

 

Luckily, PoE is mostly a mixture of BG exploration, IWD dungeon crawling and PS: T - styled writing, so I'm all on board there.

 

 

PoE has the exuberant combat focus of IWD1/2 and tries to somewhat recreate the pompous and highfalutin writing of PS:T (without ever getting there, for better or worse), that's right. Sadly it has hardly any element of BG2 at all. And no, exploration was not the core USP of BG2, not even by a far stretch. I thought PoE2 might be a step in the right direction but I fear it will be the exact opposite.

Edited February 4, 2017 by LordCrash

[Ganrich]

 

I can't understand how some people can claim that they loved Infinity Engine CRPGs while they also claim that they didn't love Baldur's Gate 2.

There was 5 cRPGs released on Infinity Engine, 4 of which were wildly different (BG1 is very different from BG2, IWD1 and 2 are their own thing, PS: T is its own thing)

 

I enjoyed Baldur's Gate for semi-open world exploration, Icewind Dale 1+2 for fun dungeon crawling and PS: T for excellent writing. BG2 dropped semi-open world exploration from the original and only kept the writing that I perceived as "Meh" so there you go.

 

Luckily, PoE is mostly a mixture of BG exploration, IWD dungeon crawling and PS: T - styled writing, so I'm all on board there.

This. I appreciate all 5 games for what they did differently.

 

BG1's open world and subtle story telling (iron crisis being mentioned and weapons breaking), piecing together the mystery of what's going on is well done, and so on

 

The IWD's were great combat romps, and they had simple, linear stories.

 

PST did story incredibly well, and had great companions.

 

BG2 was epic, and I enjoyed it. However, it isn't the be all end all to me, either. It's great, and has more strengths than weaknesses compared to the other 4, but some of the other's weaknesses gave them charm too. The loss of the semi-open world from BG1 was a detriment for me personally. To each their own.

[Fenixp]

Luckily it has hardly any element of BG2 at all.

I fixed that for you :-P

 

And no, exploration was not the core USP of BG2, not even by a far stretch.

No, it wasn't. That's what I said.

[LordCrash]

 

Luckily it has hardly any element of BG2 at all.

I fixed that for you :-P

 

And no, exploration was not the core USP of BG2, not even by a far stretch.

No, it wasn't. That's what I said.

 

 

BG2 is far superior to any other IE CRPG. Don't even try to deny it. 

 

Heretics like you are the reason why PoE will never become a true classic. Shame that Josh ticks the same. PoE2 is more or less doomed to become a mediocre game (like IWD was), with MCA's getaway now more likely than ever before.

Edited February 4, 2017 by LordCrash

[Fenixp]

Heretics like you are the reason why PoE will never become a true classic.

Well that's a strong prediction to make. Considering the sequel garnered 20k backers in 10 days even now when gaming KS campaigns are generally on decline due to people getting disillusioned, you'll quite likely get surprised about just how long will people remember the game.

 

Shame that Josh ticks the same. PoE2 is more or less doomed to become a mediocre game (like IWD was), with MCA's getaway now more likely than ever before.

Except MCA wasn't all that involved in the original either now, was he? And it was a success for Obsidian, it was a critical success and it was extremely well received by general public too. Now none of that is necessarily indicative of quality of the final product, that's a very subjective call to make - but it has become one of my favourite RPGs of all time, something Baldur's Gate 2 (and 1 for that matter) quite simply failed to achieve for me. It didn't deal with any interesting topics, its setting was all over the place (because... Forgotten realms), there was no class balance whatsoever to be found and I never liked writing of the companions either.

 

Now you probably disagree on these points and that's perfectly fine, but what is the most important thing to me is that Pillars of Eternity is not another Baldur's Gate 2 - being that is what would doom it to be a mediocre game never to be remembered because we already have one of those. You may not realize this, but trying to copy all aspects of another work of art will inevitably lead to an uninspired, vastly inferior product, as opposed to what Pillars of Eternity ended up being - a game with its own vision, based on games of old, not copying them wholesale. Naturally, you may end up disliking it. And that's fine.

 

And to loop back on the original topic, that's why I don't particularly mind 5 member parties or any other of the array of changes which are being made to the formula - we already have a Pillars of Eternity and if history is of any indication, creating a carbon copy of it with different content would quite likely just lead to it being an extremely unremarkable game. As it is tho, we'll get another RPG in the vein of Infinity Engine games without being the same as any single one of them or as its predecessor - and that is a good thing. I can come back to existing games at any point. I don't, however, have resources to create a brand new one.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Fenixp

[LordCrash]

Nobody said that they should copy the old games wholesale. The problem is that they didn't exactly copy the good elements and that the newly added stuff didn't really hold up to the old stuff either. PoE copied way more elements from IWD and PS:T than from BG2 and while you seem to like that, I don't. I think PoE, while still being enjoyable, indeed ended up vastly inferior to BG2 in almost every possible way, including both gameplay/combat and the narrative/companions/topic. And with the way PoE turned out to be I doubt PoE2 will become much better. After all, Obsidian hasn't proven to me at all that they could improve on the old formula. If anything PoE is more out of touch and obtuse than the games of old and especially BG2 -  and I'd hardly call that a good addition or a good way to move forward. So I don't see why I should have trust in Obsidian that the reduction to five party members will in any way benefit the game. But well, we'll see. It's not like they will change that anyway. Alia iacta sunt, like the old Romans would have said.

Edited February 5, 2017 by LordCrash

[Blarghagh]

Nobody said that they should copy the old games wholesale. The problem is that they didn't exactly copy the good elements and that the newly added stuff didn't really hold up to the old stuff either. PoE copied way more elements from IWD and PS:T than from BG2 and while you seem to like that, I don't.

I don't think they're "copying" more from IWD and PS:T by choice so much as Obsidian just consists of more old Black Isle devs who worked on IWD and PS:T. The same design styles and philosophies come into the forefront more.

 

I do agree, though. I think all IE games have strengths and flaws and BG2 is no exception, but I'm hoping to see more aspects of BG2 in PoE2. Specifically the amount of companion interaction and interjection, the massive scope, and variety of different and exotic locales, (side)quests, encounters and monsters. Firkraag, the Sahuagin city, the Unseeing Eye and the Planar Sphere may have had diddly to do with the plot but they were damn awesome.

[blotter]

My general preference is for six party members, if only because I'd prefer that artificial constraints on party size allow for as many as possible so as to allow more exploration of character/class options and to increase the party's range of potential reactivity to dialogue. That being said, multiclassing should allow for more opportunities for exploration in character building and it sounds as though there will be a greater emphasis on companion relationships and reactions as well, so PoE 2 may come out ahead of its predecessor on both counts even with the reduced party size.

Edited February 5, 2017 by blotter

[Princess Pilfer]

I strongly prefer 6 characters.

 

4 characters is flat out boring, and was a major hang up in my ability to enjoy the NWN games and Tyranny. There are basically 2 optimal party comps for this type of RPG in a 4 person party, Tank, Tank, Heal, DPS or Tank, Heal, DPS, DPS. This is very, very limiting as far as strategy and tactics goes, and while I love DA:O I'm not going to pretend that my ability to set complex AI scripts and then just watch or ignore the battle (occasinally aiming spells or changing targets) as opposed to actually engaging in the monotonous attrition based combat didn't play a large part. 

 

5 I can't pretend I have a whole lot of experience with, but I'll explain why I prefer 6.

 

With 6 characters, you as a player have more flexibility in both strategy and tactics. More party comps, more active effects on both enemies and allies, more useful formations. This not only increases the number of interesting strategies the player can create, but it also means the Devs can create more interesting encounters. For a more specific example, In 4 person parties formation is not a thing. Melee up front, ranged in back, don't stand in AOEs, it's no more complicated than that.  In a 6 person party you can have actual front/middle/rear lines, which means not only do you have to figure out a good formation for your particular strategy, but the devs can do things like have large groups of enemies sheltering a mage who drops big AOEs on your formation and now you not only have to get out of the AOEs, but also figure out how to salvage your formation so can remain effective and so you you aren't exposing your middle/rear lines to the hoards of enemies.

[dragubaba]

I have this thing that I always have to have few less members in the party than what maximum party size is. In PoE if I'm not doing a solo run I use 4 people for the extra exp the missing 2 provide.

[LordCrash]

This might be an unpopular opinion but the reduction to five party members could just mean that Obsidian is trying to bring down the complexity of encounters, making them easier to create. The less dynamic elements involved, the less hassle. It might be that the party reduction doesn't really offer better gameplay but just less work for Obsidian. This way they had to create less enemies and less tactical depth. Maybe they learnt during the development of Tyranny that a smaller party results in easier and faster encounter design, shortening development and reducing the necessary workload. With the inclusion of multi-classes and sub-classes and the rise of completely that will follow that inclusion they very likely looked for ways to reduce the complexity again in order to make the game more manageable and less bloated. Reducing the complexity again by reducing the party member might a be a prime motive for the designers from their point of view, making their life easier. From a gamer perspective who loves the tactical depth of CRPGs and how loves the flexibility for both gameplay and narrative options a big party delivers this is a frightening and sad perspective, to be honest. I'd rather stay with traditional classes (maybe sub-classes included) and 6 party members than with multi-classes and only 5 party members - a combination of both elements seems to be impossible for Obsidian to deliver upon.

Edited February 5, 2017 by LordCrash

[JerekKruger]

Nobody said that they should copy the old games wholesale.

 

Well Lanyon has all but said exactly that. He's criticised changes from the only IE games, waxed lyrical about how amazing BG2 was and used the phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" at least once. 

[LordCrash]

 

Nobody said that they should copy the old games wholesale.

 

Well Lanyon has all but said exactly that. He's criticised changes from the only IE games, waxed lyrical about how amazing BG2 was and used the phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" at least once. 

 

 

yeah, with nobody I actually meant just myself, I admit it... 

Edited February 5, 2017 by LordCrash

[JerekKruger]

This might be an unpopular opinion but the reduction to five party members could just mean that Obsidian is trying to bring down the complexity of encounters, making them easier to create. The less dynamic elements involved, the less hassle. It might be that the party reduction doesn't really offer better gameplay but just less work for Obsidian. This way they had to create less enemies and less tactical depth. Maybe they learnt during the development of Tyranny that a smaller party results in easier and faster encounter design, shortening development and reducing the necessary workload. With the inclusion of multi-classes and sub-classes and the rise of completely that will follow that inclusion they very likely looked for ways to reduce the complexity again in order to make the game more manageable and less bloated. Reducing the complexity again by reducing the party member might a be a prime motive for the designers from their point of view, making their life easier. From a gamer perspective who loves the tactical depth of CRPGs and how loves the flexibility for both gameplay and narrative options a big party delivers this is a frightening and sad perspective, to be honest. I'd rather stay with traditional classes (maybe sub-classes included) and 6 party members than with multi-classes and only 5 party members - a combination of both elements seems to be impossible for Obsidian to deliver upon.

 

Bloody hell, what is it with this thread and unfounded conspiracy theories.

 

A major complaint about combat in PoE was that it was hard to follow what was going on. Characters were lost behind visual effects, the combat log moved at approximately a billion miles per hour and it was next to impossible to determine who was engaging whom. On top of that, a lot of encounters were bloated with trash mobs. In BG2 most dragon fights had no adds at all, in PoE there's only one addless dragon fight. Given all that, the most likely explanation for the reduction is that Obsidian found that it solved, or at least helped, a lot of those problems: with fewer characters there are fewer spell effects flying around, the combat log will move slower, and a single dragon can once again pose a threat by itself.

 

Your theory could, of course, be true, but let's think about it for a moment: everything I ever see from the Obsidian development team is enthusiasm for making RPGs. This could all be a front of course, but I doubt that Obsidian are paying people to coach Josh to hide the fact he hates RPGs, and I hope Obsidian aren't lying when they say a large proportion of their staff play tabletop RPGs. I am sure that, as the release date draws closer, Obsidian will have to make compromises over various aspects of the game to make sure it releases in a reasonable amount of time; but I find it hard to believe that, right now, fairly early on in development, they have gone "oh dear, multiclassing is complicated, oh well let's just put less effort into encounters instead".

[LordCrash]

 

This might be an unpopular opinion but the reduction to five party members could just mean that Obsidian is trying to bring down the complexity of encounters, making them easier to create. The less dynamic elements involved, the less hassle. It might be that the party reduction doesn't really offer better gameplay but just less work for Obsidian. This way they had to create less enemies and less tactical depth. Maybe they learnt during the development of Tyranny that a smaller party results in easier and faster encounter design, shortening development and reducing the necessary workload. With the inclusion of multi-classes and sub-classes and the rise of completely that will follow that inclusion they very likely looked for ways to reduce the complexity again in order to make the game more manageable and less bloated. Reducing the complexity again by reducing the party member might a be a prime motive for the designers from their point of view, making their life easier. From a gamer perspective who loves the tactical depth of CRPGs and how loves the flexibility for both gameplay and narrative options a big party delivers this is a frightening and sad perspective, to be honest. I'd rather stay with traditional classes (maybe sub-classes included) and 6 party members than with multi-classes and only 5 party members - a combination of both elements seems to be impossible for Obsidian to deliver upon.

 

Bloody hell, what is it with this thread and unfounded conspiracy theories.

 

 

I don't think that this is a conspiracy theory. It's actually a absolutely normal and perfectly human behaviour that people want to make their work easier and to reduce the complexity of the tasks ahead. It's just a fact that multi-classes and sub-classes make the gameplay even more complex. And it's a fact as well that Obsidian implemented a gameplay concept in Tyranny that offered a pretty significant reduction in complexity. Add commercial considerations and the tight budget for such a project and you have a mixture in which my point isn't some kind of out-of-touch conspiracy theory but just a natural development. 

 

And of course the wish to reduce complexity could also be based on the simple consideration that many players might just be overwhelmed by the gameplay when multi- and sub-classes will be added to the already pretty obtuse systems in Pillars. That's a fair argument and the stuff stated above and this argument aren't mutually exklusive. I think that they reinforced each other.

 

But personally, I think it's the wrong approch for the issue. If they had to reduce complexity they should revamp their core gameplay approach (and their GUI) instead of just cutting stuff from the formula. But sure, cutting a party member is much easier and simpler than changing core elements of the gameplay and systems. So again it's perfectly understandable - but sad nevertheless.

Edited February 5, 2017 by LordCrash

[JerekKruger]

I don't think that this is a conspiracy theory. It's actually a absolutely normal and perfectly human behaviour that people want to make their work easier and to reduce the complexity of the tasks ahead. 

 

When they don't enjoy their work yes. People who are genuinely enthusiastic about what they do don't have this, in fact they often suffer from the opposite problem.

 

It's just a fact that multi-classes and sub-classes make the gameplay even more complex. And it's a fact as well that Obsidian implemented a gameplay concept in Tyranny that offered a pretty significant reduction in complexity. Add commercial considerations and the tight budget for such a project and you have a mixture in which my point isn't some kind of out-of-touch conspiracy theory but just a natural development. 

 

 

It's also a fact that Tyranny was not praised for its gameplay mechanics. As for added complexity, what do you mean? Do you mean it will be very hard to ensure that each encounter is balanced in difficulty for every possible combination of multi-classes? If so then obviously that's the case, and Obsidian would be foolish to imagine they could ever make it not be the case even with simplified encounters. They would also be foolish, in my opinion, if they decided to simplify encounter design since this is something that many of their fans wouldn't be happy about.

 

As for budget, they don't know their budget yet and we have even less of a clue (since we've no idea how much money from PoE's huge success they've put back into Deadfire development).

 

And of course the wish to reduce complexity could also be based on the simple consideration that many players might just be overwhelmed by the gameplay when multi- and sub-classes will be added to the already pretty obtuse systems in Pillars.

 

 

This isn't necessarily targeted at you, but I find the accusations of PoE having overcomplicated mechanics bizarre when it comes from people who also hold up BG2 as the pinnacle of CRPGs. AD&D is a hot mess of a system and is completely unintuitive. Many mechanics in PoE don't work in quite the way you'd assume they would, but they do do what you expect (+20% attack speed doesn't increase your attack speed by 20%, but it does increase your attack speed).

[LordCrash]

When they don't enjoy their work yes. People who are genuinely enthusiastic about what they do don't have this, in fact they often suffer from the opposite problem.

My personal guess is a combination of both. And I also don't necessarily mean the guys who design the stuff but the guys who are in charge and who decide in the end which way to go. That's a top management issue as well, not just one on the design level.

 

It's also a fact that Tyranny was not praised for its gameplay mechanics.

Depends on who you ask I guess. I know quite some people who liked the "streamlined" system...

 

As for added complexity, what do you mean? Do you mean it will be very hard to ensure that each encounter is balanced in difficulty for every possible combination of multi-classes? If so then obviously that's the case, and Obsidian would be foolish to imagine they could ever make it not be the case even with simplified encounters. They would also be foolish, in my opinion, if they decided to simplify encounter design since this is something that many of their fans wouldn't be happy about.

The overall encounter design with the inclusion of multi-classes probably won't be less complex than the one in PoE in terms of balance, even with only five party members. But Josh said himself that the reduction of party size allows them for enemy groups with less members in encounters. That naturally reduces the workload and the additional effort that would have gone into encounter design if the party size stayed the same.

 

As for budget, they don't know their budget yet and we have even less of a clue (since we've no idea how much money from PoE's huge success they've put back into Deadfire development).

Yes and no. I highly doubt that they plan with a bigger core team, no matter the crowdfunding results. Most of the money will go to external stuff like localization and not in an increased internal staff size. So the budget for aspects like core design is pretty much alrady set in stone imo.

 

This isn't necessarily targeted at you, but I find the accusations of PoE having overcomplicated mechanics bizarre when it comes from people who also hold up BG2 as the pinnacle of CRPGs. AD&D is a hot mess of a system and is completely unintuitive.

Well, I guess we have to disagree here then. Imo BG2 was way more intuitive than PoE, at least on the basic level. I agree with you that the picture changed once you got to the core of every trait or spell but please take into account that not everybody is very interested in understanding every bit of the deep mechanics anyway. Imo the mechanics in AD&D were comparably easy to learn (the basics) while pretty hard to master (the depths). In PoE though the system was both hard to learn and hard to master. Edited February 5, 2017 by LordCrash

[JerekKruger]

But Josh said himself that the reduction of party size allows them for enemy groups with less members in encounters. That naturally reduces the workload and the additional effort that would have gone into encounter design if the party size stayed the same.

 

Fewer enemies doesn't mean simpler encounter design. There are a lot of encounters in PoE that have upwards of twenty enemies (PotD admittedly, but even on hard you're talking 10-15) but they aren't intricately designed encounters, they're just big swarms of enemies with a few tougher enemies included. I'd much prefer fights against smaller groups where each member of the enemy group has some important role to play beyond "trash".

 

Yes and no. I highly doubt that they plan with a bigger core team, no matter the crowdfunding results. Most of the money will go to external stuff like localization and not in an increased internal staff size. So the budget for aspects like core design is pretty much alrady set in stone imo.

 

 

Maybe, though don't be so sure. Obsidian has a lot more staff working for it than it has working on any given project. If the funding goes really well I could see staff from other projects being diverted to work on Deadfire, particularly if some of the stretch goals end up being content related.

 

Well, I guess we have to disagree here then. Imo BG2 was way more intuitive than PoE, at least on the basic level. I agree with you that the picture changed once you got to the core of every trait or spell but please take into account that not everybody is very interested in understanding every bit of the deep mechanics anyway. Imo the mechanics in AD&D were comparably easy to learn (the basics) while pretty hard to master (the depths). In PoE though the system was both hard to learn and hard to master.

 

 

Given how many times I've seen people completely confused by the fact that raising their dexterity makes their armour class worse* I disagree. THAC0 wasn't particularly confusing to me once I read how it worked, but I've known people who still couldn't get to grips with the idea even after detailed explanations. This isn't meant as a "I'm so smart, they're so dumb" brag, It's just an observation that it was, for some people, a very unintuitive system.

 

I would however be interested in knowing what part of the basic system of PoE is hard to understand? I'll happily concede that it's difficult to master, particularly since I don't think anyone outside of Obsidian (possibly inside Obsidian as well) truly has yet.

 

*Before you correct me, I know it doesn't.

[Fenixp]

At least when I increase strength in Pillars of Eternity I knows it means more powerful effects. It can means absolutely anything or nothing at all depending on class in ADnD. Both systems have issues with clarity - a person saying one is clearer than the other just suggests to me that said person spent more time with the 'clearer' one

[Blarghagh]

 

I don't think that this is a conspiracy theory. It's actually a absolutely normal and perfectly human behaviour that people want to make their work easier and to reduce the complexity of the tasks ahead.

When they don't enjoy their work yes. People who are genuinely enthusiastic about what they do don't have this, in fact they often suffer from the opposite problem.

No, he's absolutely right. No conspiracy about it. This simplifies the amount of work hours and effort to make a good encounter. Since dev time and money are limited, the easier you make it to create a good encounter the more good encounters you can make. That is exactly the call someone passionate about making games would make.

 

Like I explained to Lanyon, there's a host of problems (readability, pacing, screen real-estate, ability pool and micromanagement) which made it hard to balance a good encounter with 6 in PoE leading to more trash, visual bloat, lack of clarity etc. - after all, an interesting encounter needs to account for everything gour party can throw at it. Moving to 5 mitigates these problems, making it easier to design a good encounter in PoE 2. You have a budget for encounters (time and money): The less budget you use per single encounter means the more encounters you make.

 

Also, what makes you think passionate people don't seek efficiency? Why would a painter seek to get better at painting if not to make better paintings more quickly? I'm a 3D artist by training, 90% of what I do is to accomplish a goal more easily.

[JerekKruger]

 

 

I don't think that this is a conspiracy theory. It's actually a absolutely normal and perfectly human behaviour that people want to make their work easier and to reduce the complexity of the tasks ahead.

When they don't enjoy their work yes. People who are genuinely enthusiastic about what they do don't have this, in fact they often suffer from the opposite problem.

No, he's absolutely right. No conspiracy about it. This simplifies the amount of work hours and effort to make a good encounter. Since dev time and money are limited, the easier you make it to create a good encounter the more good encounters you can make. That is exactly the call someone passionate about making games would make.

 

Hmm... yeah I guess. My bad, I read into LordCrash's post something that wasn't there.

 

EDIT: specifically I read his post to be "given the extra complexity that multi-classing adds, making good encounters is too much work so we're not going to" rather than "given the extra complexity that multi-classing adds, making good encounters for six person parties is too much work so we're going to focus on making them for smaller parties".

Edited February 5, 2017 by JerekKruger