List of things to improve upon in PoE II

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

(removed the Gromnir/algroth reply/quote silliness)

 

 

*sigh*

 

oh, sure, you can be a priest lockpicker/trapfinder, but you won't be as good as a rogue at such tasks no matter what you do... unless you find gloves o\ manipulation.  and yeah, just 'cause a class isn't good at something doesn't mean you can't play such a character. if only rogue gets the bonus, then no matter how you look at it, there is a limit 'pon other classes.  is obvious a limit.  this should not be difficult to comprehend... is not complicated or philosophically profound. 

 

for some inexplicable reason, in spite o' the changes made to the poe rogue compared to ie game baggage, the developers once again made traps/locks a salient feature o' the poe rogue.  traps/locks is a threshold skill, and even a single extra point in mechanics, particular at lower levels, represents a huge practical difference.  keep tell us how the class bonus is no biggie ignores the fact you still haven't provided a reason to keep such a limit.  advantage o' doing away is freeing up customization options, which the developers has stated as a goal.  got a limit with no stated advantage other than the one Gromnir observed and dismissed, thoroughly, earlier in this thread. 

 

and speaking for the developers, 'cause they has spoken for themselves, they is perfect happy when folks play their characters as they wish and have fun doing so.  whether the player wants to really role-play as a former slave from the deadfire, or if the player is more concerned with the lore bonus from playing an aristocrat matters little to the developers as long as the player enjoys the experience.  force a player to play the way algroth believes is appropriate is indulging in a bit o' hubris.

 

yeah, the developers do concern themselves with balance often in spite o' the protests o' players.  every nerf or fixed exploit is met with community chagrin.  the thing is, in the long run, the developers is aware a balanced game with many relative equivalent options will provide more fun than a game with clear win or lose options.  player claims 'bout what is fun often conflict with developer notions o' balance. even so, what most rpg developers want is not necessarily for a player to take on a role, but rather to have fun.

 

but again, if there is no compelling reason for a functional limit 'pon player customization, then such a limit is lacking value and should be abandoned. should be an obvious conclusion.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[the_dog_days]

Gromnir/algrot compromise: a suggested allotment of skills based on class that can be changed.

[algroth]

 

 

 

 

(removed the Gromnir/algroth reply/quote silliness)

 

 

*sigh*

 

oh, sure, you can be a priest lockpicker/trapfinder, but you won't be as good as a rogue at such tasks no matter what you do... unless you find gloves o\ manipulation.  and yeah, just 'cause a class isn't good at something doesn't mean you can't play such a character. if only rogue gets the bonus, then no matter how you look at it, there is a limit 'pon other classes.  is obvious a limit.  this should not be difficult to comprehend... is not complicated or philosophically profound. 

 

for some inexplicable reason, in spite o' the changes made to the poe rogue compared to ie game baggage, the developers once again made traps/locks a salient feature o' the poe rogue.  traps/locks is a threshold skill, and even a single extra point in mechanics, particular at lower levels, represents a huge practical difference.  keep tell us how the class bonus is no biggie ignores the fact you still haven't provided a reason to keep such a limit.  advantage o' doing away is freeing up customization options, which the developers has stated as a goal.  got a limit with no stated advantage other than the one Gromnir observed and dismissed, thoroughly, earlier in this thread. 

 

and speaking for the developers, 'cause they has spoken for themselves, they is perfect happy when folks play their characters as they wish and have fun doing so.  whether the player wants to really role-play as a former slave from the deadfire, or if the player is more concerned with the lore bonus from playing an aristocrat matters little to the developers as long as the player enjoys the experience.  force a player to play the way algroth believes is appropriate is indulging in a bit o' hubris.

 

yeah, the developers do concern themselves with balance often in spite o' the protests o' players.  every nerf or fixed exploit is met with community chagrin.  the thing is, in the long run, the developers is aware a balanced game with many relative equivalent options will provide more fun than a game with clear win or lose options.  player claims 'bout what is fun often conflict with developer notions o' balance. even so, what most rpg developers want is not necessarily for a player to take on a role, but rather to have fun.

 

but again, if there is no compelling reason for a functional limit 'pon player customization, then such a limit is lacking value and should be abandoned. should be an obvious conclusion.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Again, you view it as a limit and I don't see how it is one. Of course a class that innately trains a given skill will have a better chance at being better at that given skill than one which isn't - far as I'm concerned this is a better reason than any you've given so far. As with Flint I don't necessarily believe rogues should have a bonus to mechanics, but would a fighter innately be more athletic given his profession? Yes. Is this a hindrance to gameplay or character customization in any way? Not that I can see it. Same for lore, same for survival, same for stealth and so on. Mechanics as a skill is different because it exists more as a party requisite than the rest of the skills and I think therein lies the problem.

 

I don't assume the voice of the devs because I'm not the devs and neither are you (you call me out on my alleged hybris but this reeks more of it), but the whole idea that they are "happy when folks play their characters as they wish" is only true to an extent. When asked for the option of altering NPC stats and classes in-game, Josh said he wouldn't, because it would go against the logic and background of said character. He's fine with mods doing it of course, but clearly certain things they want to keep fixed just because it works in favour of verisimilitude and ludonarrative consistency. To me this case is no different. Clearly they thought it would make sense from this perspective for classes to grant a skill bonus in certain areas, and maybe for backgrounds to do so as well even if these are also evidently designed less for the sake of gameplay and more for the sake of narrative and roleplaying experience.

 

In all frankness though, I'm done with this argument. It's not nearly that relevant and I don't like your tone, the way you sigh every time and shrug off any arguments with absolute condescension. Good day.

Edited September 4, 2017 by algroth

[PugPug]

1. Do not list limited crafting ingredients within enchantment recipes until they've been attained (or through some other mechanism of discovery).  Who thought that having the player know most of the antagonists five minutes into the game would be a good thing? 

 

 

It's probably simplest to not have the recipes appear until you get the plot loot to craft them.

 

I would add that limited crafting ingredients should either be reclaimable by scrapping the item, or it should be very clear they are limited, and all the options for the ingredient should be available at the same time. To prevent regrets.

 

In POE1, even common ingredients are limited. The result is I basically don't enchant anything, because I know if I do, I might not be able to enchant something I like more later.

[Gromnir]

Gromnir/algrot compromise: a suggested allotment of skills based on class that can be changed.

 

gonna need explain. am not seeing a need for differentiation o' skills based 'pon class.  the classes is quite unique already, so why place limits on skills?  still haven't seen an answer to the fundamental question, eh?  what purpose does the limit serve? .  is simple an expectation thing?  one expects classes to offer different skill pools.  one expects rogues to be better at mechanics than priests, whether or not a poe rogue is actual akin to a d&d rogue or not? 

 

regardless, w/o knowing what kinda scheme you are actual suggesting, we cannot criticize or applaud sans our fundamental objection to adding limits to already limited classes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(removed the Gromnir/algroth reply/quote silliness)

 

 

*sigh*

 

oh, sure, you can be a priest lockpicker/trapfinder, but you won't be as good as a rogue at such tasks no matter what you do... unless you find gloves o\ manipulation.  and yeah, just 'cause a class isn't good at something doesn't mean you can't play such a character. if only rogue gets the bonus, then no matter how you look at it, there is a limit 'pon other classes.  is obvious a limit.  this should not be difficult to comprehend... is not complicated or philosophically profound. 

 

for some inexplicable reason, in spite o' the changes made to the poe rogue compared to ie game baggage, the developers once again made traps/locks a salient feature o' the poe rogue.  traps/locks is a threshold skill, and even a single extra point in mechanics, particular at lower levels, represents a huge practical difference.  keep tell us how the class bonus is no biggie ignores the fact you still haven't provided a reason to keep such a limit.  advantage o' doing away is freeing up customization options, which the developers has stated as a goal.  got a limit with no stated advantage other than the one Gromnir observed and dismissed, thoroughly, earlier in this thread. 

 

and speaking for the developers, 'cause they has spoken for themselves, they is perfect happy when folks play their characters as they wish and have fun doing so.  whether the player wants to really role-play as a former slave from the deadfire, or if the player is more concerned with the lore bonus from playing an aristocrat matters little to the developers as long as the player enjoys the experience.  force a player to play the way algroth believes is appropriate is indulging in a bit o' hubris.

 

yeah, the developers do concern themselves with balance often in spite o' the protests o' players.  every nerf or fixed exploit is met with community chagrin.  the thing is, in the long run, the developers is aware a balanced game with many relative equivalent options will provide more fun than a game with clear win or lose options.  player claims 'bout what is fun often conflict with developer notions o' balance. even so, what most rpg developers want is not necessarily for a player to take on a role, but rather to have fun.

 

but again, if there is no compelling reason for a functional limit 'pon player customization, then such a limit is lacking value and should be abandoned. should be an obvious conclusion.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Again, you view it as a limit and I don't see how it is one. 

 

kinda a dead-end right there, no?  your inability to see how a skill cap being lower for every other class is anything other than a limit perplexes us, but am suspecting you is not actual being genuine at this point.

 

nevertheless, we will once again observe how you show lack o' imagination which should not burden Gromnir and others. there is no reason why an individual poe fighter should be inherent more athletic than a priest or wizard.  you can make melee combat priests and wizards in poe.  you can make a crowd control fighter in poe.  so our priest character spent his days in religious "meditation" which involved rigorous physical training to toughen his body as well as his soul.  on the other hand, a player-character's fighter recognized how intelligent use o' force were far more potent on the battlefield than would be brute force, so the fighter spent more o' his effort studying strategy and tactics as 'posed to climbing walls and getting beat senseless with a heavy practice weapon.

 

oh, and even if you do see some kinda verisimilitude or realism *chuckle* in an inherent more mechanical inclined rogue, you still ain't provided a game reason for such a limit.  men is tending to be stronger than women.  so what?  in a game, there is no reason to cap a female character's strength at levels lower than a male. player freedom and fairness is gonna trump elusive notions o' realism Every Single Time.

 

is no need to place unnecessary additional limits on classes.  is a class-based system and the classes, by their nature is limiting.  is no reason to add to inherent limits.

 

but if you don't see (or admit) how a lower mechanics skill cap for classes other than rogue is a limit, then yeah, am thinking Gromnir has become at least as exhausted as is you. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps homer huffed better.

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Gromnir

[Lord_Mord]

Rogues cant use magic. I find that very limiting.

[Messier-31]

1. Please, less RNG tied to loot.  Whether it be Azzuro that took 147 game days to show up in my playthrough (...)

 

Consider yourself lucky. I'm finishing my 3rd playthrough and Azzuro haven't visited me even once. Ever.

[Gromnir]

Rogues cant use magic. I find that very limiting.

 

to be fair, most o' their abilities not specific tied to sneak attack might as well be magical.

 

am knowing the response is tongue-in-cheek, but is actual a valid argument for classless system.  why can't your rogueish character learn a little  (or more) magic? 'cause o' arbitrary and limiting class label?  

 

even so, poe has classes.  poe will have classes for deadfire and future games.  nevertheless, is no good reason to expand the class limits.  add class limits to skills? why?  still ain't never seen any attempt to explain why such a limit is a boon to to poe beyond the one weak explanation we already addressed. does such limits make classes more unique? well, kinda.  if you want the best mechanics in the game, you gotta have a rogue.  such a limit is a pretty terrible way for developers to try and make the rogue more compelling. is precisely why folks would go to extreme metagame lengths to acquire gloves o' manipulation-- so they wouldn't need a rogue. 

 

and now we is full circle.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 4, 2017 by Gromnir

[Lord_Mord]

 

am knowing the response is tongue-in-cheek, but is actual a valid argument for classless system.

 

I think there is no need for an argument for a class based system. Pillars is a class based game just because it is, beause those are the rules of the game. It's like arguing about wether the rules of chess are limiting. Of course they are. That's the point.

 

 

 why can't your rogueish character learn a little  (or more) magic? 'cause o' arbitrary and limiting class label?

 

Well, now he/she can, because of multiclassing. But if you want full specialisation you have to play a mage of course. It is totally possible to create a non-rogue character with sufficient mechanics or stealth skills, so you are not really limited. But if you want to have a specialist, then of course you have to play a rogue.

 

I think it is totally natural that my plumber is better at plumbing than me.

 

 

is precisely why folks would go to extreme metagame lengths to acquire gloves o' manipulation-- so they wouldn't need a rogue.

 

So what? That's roleplaing in some sense. I often leave behind characters I don't like without proper replacement, so I have to be creative.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Lord_Mord

[esyvjrt]

The problem comes with the lack of other sources of mechanics skill in character creation, hope we get more in Deadfire

 

 

I think it is totally natural that my plumber is better at plumbing than me.

And is totally natural that a mechanic is better at mechanics.

[Gromnir]

 

 

am knowing the response is tongue-in-cheek, but is actual a valid argument for classless system.

 

I think there is no need for an argument for a class based system. Pillars is a class based game just because it is, beause those are the rules of the game. It's like arguing about wether the rules of chess are limiting. Of course they are. That's the point.

 

 

 why can't your rogueish character learn a little  (or more) magic? 'cause o' arbitrary and limiting class label?

 

Well, now he/she can, because of multiclassing. But if you want full specialisation you have to play a mage of course. It is totally possible to create a non-rogue character with sufficient mechanics or stealth skills, so you are not really limited. But if you want to have a specialist, then of course you have to play a rogue.

 

I think it is totally natural that my plumber is better at plumbing than me.

 

 

is precisely why folks would go to extreme metagame lengths to acquire gloves o' manipulation-- so they wouldn't need a rogue.

 

So what? That's roleplaing in some sense. I often leave behind characters I don't like without proper replacement, so I have to be creative.

 

reply/quote results in these kinda nonresponsive replies.  tell us it ain't worth arguing over class v. classless when Gromnir already made such a point? okie dokie.

 

you still ain't supplied a reason or benefit for having the limit. rationalize the limit is not a reason.  'course you do equivocate by then trying to suggest the limit isn't really a limit, but such is what Gromnir is having to deal with. the foundation question is the one people keep avoiding.

 

in any event, the plumber analogy is what is complete wrong with some folks arguing.  the poe rogue is a melee specialist who excels at hurting people who is weakened or vulnerable.  is a Combat class.  early in poe development, eder were gonna be a rogue.  eder in deadfire can be a rogue from level one.  as such should be clear there is nothing 'bout the poe rogue which makes mechanics integral to the class other than your expectations from other games and 'cause obsidian added the skills bonuses.  is not plumbing for plumbers.  the poe rogue is not clear not defined by his mechanics.  a poe rogue can go through the entire game w/o ever picking a lock or disarming a trap.  would be ridiculous, save for in mario brothers, which is intentional ridiculous, for a plumber character to never do any pipe work. 

 

wanna play analogies? better mechanic, the bouncer at a local biker bar, or your plumber? which is gonna be more analogous to a poe rogue? you honest expect the bounder to have some kinda inherent mechanical aptitude? no? then why do you see such for a poe rogue?

 

as to the "so what" bit you end with, such should be obvious.  fewer limits makes it possible for a player to build characters more likely to match their rp concept.  player should be able to play their own character rather than need play the developer options.  this is the reason why the developers has repeated stated they is in favor o' providing greater character customization options.  an arbitrary limit on skills is antithetical to such a goal.  

 

as josh stated in a recent interview 'bout customization options, 

 

"it's up to you to justify it... if it's kewl to you, that is all that matters."

 

your notions o' plumbers and self contradictory limits/non-limits should not be a restraint on Gromnir or anybody else.  the obsidian developers see merit in allowing each player to justify, just so long as is mechanical balanced.  

 

and still no reason for the existence o' the limit as 'posed to simple trying to rationalize some kinda internal logic.  what purpose does the limit serve other than one we has already described multiple times?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[FlintlockJazz]

Rogues cant use magic. I find that very limiting.

Not but Druids can.  So can Chanters and Ciphers.  So you are not forced to just take Wizards.  Outside of Pillars of Eternity you have Sorcerers and Bards.  Options.  In D&D 3.5, if you wanted to find and disarm traps you HAD to take at least a level of Rogue (messing up race combos while it was at it) in order to be able to have Trapfinding.  The Rogue was like some spoiled little brat sat there hoarding all these things going "Noo!  You can't have that!  It's mine!!  MINE!"  Apparently Sneak Attack (which often seemed like something anyone should be able to do, as it was just really a called shot at vitals) wasn't enough for the snotty piece of crap, he had to ring fence off traps and locks too.  Oh and Stealth in the early editions of D&D!  Stealth is a basic adventuring skill, wtf?? 

 

I wanted to bring along a Bard instead in many cases, but nooooope!  Not good enough, you need Rogue, sorry, for no reason other than to give the Rogue-class a reason to exist.  And that's the most annoying thing: its obvious in D&D and other games with this problem that the things you need a rogue for are only there to justify having a rogue!  If I had my way I would gut the class (with a spoon in the whiney rogue's guts) and spread its features out amongst the others but I'm sure I would get hate for that.

 

And as Gromnir pointed out the Rogue does have magic powers, especially if you look at 2nd ed D&D versions, where the Rogue's stealth could make him disappear and move quieter than a Monk using actual magic abilities to move silently.  The rogue is a holdover from earlier times when RPGs consisted of a series of rooms with battles in with monsters in one room not noticing what was happening in the next room over, not actual adventurers sneaking into enemy encampments or strongholds where if they made too much noise the entire place would light up.  I always thought several scenes in Conan the Barbarian were good RPG adventurers entering the DM's dungeon moments, like the buildup to the orgy chamber attack.

Edited September 7, 2017 by FlintlockJazz

[daven]

OK I never took a rogue and I'm pretty sure I never had trouble picking any locks or sorting any traps at all.

 

Also... why bother having locks and traps at all if everyone can always pick/disarm them? Or maybe there should be another way to deal with them. Using a spell or bashing it open/throwing some kind of item at the trap to start it.

 

DUNNO

[FlintlockJazz]

OK I never took a rogue and I'm pretty sure I never had trouble picking any locks or sorting any traps at all.

 

Also... why bother having locks and traps at all if everyone can always pick/disarm them? Or maybe there should be another way to deal with them. Using a spell or bashing it open/throwing some kind of item at the trap to start it.

 

DUNNO

Pillars of Eternity is definitely better in this regard in that a Rogue isn't absolutely necessary for it, they just get a bonus that no other character can get (which is pretty big if developing that skill but isn't gamebreaking).  However, if we can make it even better then why not?  As the Rogue in Pillars is intended to include shock troops and street duelists, why does it get such a big Mechanics bonus?  If I was to play a musketeer or duelist type I would want to go Rogue but I wouldn't care about picking locks or disarming traps, so why should those types be lumped with bonuses to those skills?  Rangers have more excuse to have trap skills as they are the ones most likely to set up snares and the like.  In fact, why do Rangers NOT get trap skills?  Sure, they are designed for nature environments but those too have traps in them, and its the scout who you usually want dealing with them!

 

As to why bother having locks and traps, no one is asking for all characters to be able to do it all the time, just that it isn't tied down to one class.

Edited September 7, 2017 by FlintlockJazz

[daven]

Maybe it would be best to do away with tying skill bonus' to class, and keep them only relating to the backgrounds and that.

[PugPug]

I agree classes should not get skill bonuses. I also think it's worth talking about racial attribute bonuses.

 

Now, in most games, this makes a particular race the best race for a given class -- a gnome with +2 intelligence makes the best mage, for example. In POE, attributes have more diverse functions, but there are still preferred stats for each class. Sometimes it gets really specific. If you want to have the largest, longest-lasting buffs for your chanter (and why wouldn't you), you have to be a godlike. If you want to do the most damage, you have to be a dwarf or aumaua.

 

Bonuses from cultures and backgrounds I think are pretty OK, because they mostly function as "pick your bonus stats" anyway. But there are some less serious issues... For example if you really want +athletics and +survival, you have to be a slave, and a slave can only be from 4 of the 6 regions, and you might not want to be a slave. On the other hand, it only comes up in dialogue a couple of times in the entire game.

[rjshae]

I'd prefer to see races get specific skill and combat bonuses/penalties rather than attribute modifiers. That would make the racial differences seem more "real".

[JerekKruger]

If you want to have the largest, longest-lasting buffs for your chanter (and why wouldn't you), you have to be a godlike.

 

Well the White Crest Helm gives +3 Intellect, and Godlikes can't wear it, so actually they're arguably the worst race from this point of view. In fact Godlike's inability to wear helms has gone from being relatively unimportant in vanilla Pillars to quite a big disadvantage in White March II.

 

However saying that, the difference between, say, a base Intellect 18 and a base Intellect 20 is fairly minimal, so it really doesn't matter all that much. Surprisingly few of the builds on the Pillars Strategies subforum have any base attributes higher than 18.

[PugPug]

 

If you want to have the largest, longest-lasting buffs for your chanter (and why wouldn't you), you have to be a godlike.

Well the White Crest Helm gives +3 Intellect, and Godlikes can't wear it, so actually they're arguably the worst race from this point of view. In fact Godlike's inability to wear helms has gone from being relatively unimportant in vanilla Pillars to quite a big disadvantage in White March II.

That's kind of depressing.

[JerekKruger]

That's kind of depressing.

 

Yeah, either Godlike abilities need to scale better with level in Deadfire or they need something else to make up for their lack of head slot.

[injurai]

What if their own head went in their head slot, and there was a way to attune oneself wrt the gods in varying ways. Synthesize with you're god and you can double down on certain attributes, defy your god and you get consolation jack of all trade attributes from a grab bag of other gods.

[esyvjrt]

I would like godlikes having the bonuses and/or abilities from their base race and the godlike bonuses, that way it would feel more special at the start , after all they are kiths "blesses by the gods", and this would be compensated later with the helmets so they are no overpowered

Edited September 9, 2017 by esyvjrt

[Gromnir]

I would like godlikes having the bonuses and/or abilities from their base race and the godlike bonuses, that way it would feel more special at the start , after all they are kiths "blesses by the gods", and this would be compensated later with the helmets so they are no overpowered

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lord_Mord]

 

in any event, the plumber analogy is what is complete wrong with some folks arguing.  the poe rogue is a melee specialist who excels at hurting people who is weakened or vulnerable.  is a Combat class.  early in poe development, eder were gonna be a rogue.  eder in deadfire can be a rogue from level one.  as such should be clear there is nothing 'bout the poe rogue which makes mechanics integral to the class other than your expectations from other games and 'cause obsidian added the skills bonuses.  is not plumbing for plumbers.  the poe rogue is not clear not defined by his mechanics.  a poe rogue can go through the entire game w/o ever picking a lock or disarming a trap.  would be ridiculous, save for in mario brothers, which is intentional ridiculous, for a plumber character to never do any pipe work.

 

OK, you're right. It's not a thief, it's a rogue. I should get used to it.

 

 

fewer limits makes it possible for a player to build characters more likely to match their rp concept.

 

The fewer the limits, the closer we get to a classless system. The limits make the difference between the classless and classbased systems. You know a plumber is for plumbing and so on. I'm beginning to see the real problem here: The system already is closer to classless than D&D. A rogue is not a thief, mechanics is not lockpicking nor is it disarming traps. It could mean anything: Lockpicking, plumbering, repairing motorcycles, building battle robots or megabombs. The generalization makes it more difficult to make the classes distinguishable.

 

 

its obvious in D&D and other games with this problem that the things you need a rogue for are only there to justify having a rogue!

Having an animal companion is only there to justify a ranger.

 

Having racial bonuses is only there to justify different races.

 

Having to fight something is only there to justify the game.

[daven]

Having a game is only there to justify not doing more productive things.