Pillars of Eternity Beta Discussion [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[SymbolicFrank]

I guess people who don't want have to deal with healing, inventory management, exploration, combat, those pesky stats, or playing an rpg at all should also be accommodated, then? Maybe POE can also include a first person view and manual aiming?

Morrowind was great. It looked great, and there was just so very much exploring to do! It was like living a second life, in a far-away country, where you were the most bad-ass-kicking guy around. And there was something new and interesting around every corner.

Well, ok, the combat sucked. Because there were no animations made for dodging and deflections. So it looked strange: your weapon definitely hit, often passing clean through the enemy, but it registered as a miss. And people complained that they couldn't aim properly! Which is a moronic concept for an RPG where the character's stats are what matters, not your twitch skills.

But nobody else cared about that, because the first thing you did was Become God, in whatever way you fancied, because there were very many ways to do so, and after that combat is mostly like pest control. With the occasional "Shit! What just happened!" and reload. Which is just what we wanted. Explore and experiment, not Streetfighter Pro, or Unreal Tournament. Just take your time to remake yourself and the world as you see fit.


But, of course, the people who shouted: "COmBat suXXorSS!!!!1!!" had the loudest voice. Because most everyone else was happily playing the game. And so from there on combat had to look good and be challenging. Balanced. From bandits with glass armor in Oblivion, up to being able to kill a dragon right at the start of the game. And every experience being as much the same as every other one.

So, the vast majority of the silent people who massively enjoyed Morrowind were quite disappointed by all the successors.


And it seems someone didn't learn that lesson.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

In a normal year I would be a case of customer disappointment, but 2014 is different: MM X, Blackguards, UnderRail, Divinity: Original Sin, maybe Wasteland 2 keep me happy. So everything is just fine.

I enjoyed MMX and Blackguards. Dabbled a bit in underrail Alpha, liked it and waiting for the fullv ersion to be released (next Thursday!).
Eh, I think Wasteland 2 will be bland and mediocre... not memorable at all.

Oye, you forgot Divinity original Sin, it was the best TB cRPG I ahve played in a long while.

 

[HiddenX]

nope, D:OS is listed there (*)... I have spent a few bucks on it

(*) you even quoted it

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Lol reading fail.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Infinitron Thieves can use long swords in IE games. They can't use bastard and great swords.

It is pretty hilarious how half the complainers say the classes are too restrictive and the other half say they're not restrictive enough.

I know, people have different tastes/opinions, shocking.

 

[tuluse]

I know, people have different tastes/opinions, shocking.

You know what they say, a good compromise is when both sides are unhappy.

 

[Infinitron]

Missing the forest for the trees. Rogues and mages are allowed to hold swords, so it's already a massive improvement over AD&D. With the addition of Talents and other community feedback, even more archetypes will be enabled.

I reckon you never could into multi and dual classing?

Yes, that's a common retort.

Here's my problem with multi and dual-classing as a solution to the roleplaying problem. First of all, it's very much portrayed as a kind of optional, "advanced" mechanic. Most players don't touch that sort of thing. They (rightfully) expect to get a satisfactory roleplaying experience from the list of core classes that the game offers them.

Furthermore, it dilutes your character's identity. You can't be a "Fighter who is good at X" or a "Mage who is good at Y". No, if you want your mage to do certain things decreed to be non-mage-like by the gods at TSR back in the 1980s, you have to explicitly specify that he is no longer as much of a mage.

Basically, it doesn't feel like roleplaying. It feels like a hack.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Why not? You are saying a fucking elf who lives for hundreds of years cant go to the gym and library and be proficient at both more slowly?
Or a human musclehead warrior, is smart enough to learn some arcane secrets and starts his career as a wizard.

Seems to me that multi/dual clasing provided a lot more opportunities for varied roleplaying identity.

 

[Grunker]

It is pretty hilarious how half the complainers say the classes are too restrictive and the other half say they're not restrictive enough.

Yeah, I commented on that two pages ago. It's extremely hard to take this particular brand of criticism seriously when it's so atomized that it looks more like the butthurt personal feelings of singular users and not really any consistent criticism of an overall concept. Which is probably the truth anyway.

Missing the forest for the trees. Rogues and mages are allowed to hold swords, so it's already a massive improvement over AD&D. With the addition of Talents and other community feedback, even more archetypes will be enabled.

I reckon you never could into multi and dual classing?

Yes, that's a common retort.

Here's my problem with multi and dual-classing as a solution to the roleplaying problem. First of all, it's very much portrayed as a kind of optional, "advanced" mechanic. Most players don't touch that sort of thing. They (rightfully) expect to get a satisfactory roleplaying experience from the list of core classes that the game offers them.

Furthermore, it dilutes your character's identity. You can't be a "Fighter who is good at X" or a "Mage who is good at Y". No, if you want your mage to do certain things decreed to be non-mage-like by the gods at TSR back in the 1980s, you have to explicitly specify that he is no longer as much of a mage.

Basically, it doesn't feel like roleplaying. It feels like a hack.

While I disagree completely with your representation of multi- and dual-classing (it feels no less a hack than the gamist things Josh has done with the Attribute system) I still think it's a dumb retort. "My wizard can't use a sword" countered with "yes he can... if he stops being just a wizard" is the ultimate failure to understand the point.

Anyway, AD&D brands itself on being one of the only systems in existence with that particular brand of retardation. Even 3rd ed let's a Wizard train in using a Sword if he wants to. Fucking Gandalf uses a sword. The "grognards" in this thread are very poor grognards - most show that AD&D is basically the only "old" system they're familiar with and argue solely from the perspective of their personal understanding of what that system did.

 

[aleph]

Yes, that's a common retort.

Here's my problem with multi and dual-classing as a solution to the roleplaying problem. First of all, it's very much portrayed as a kind of optional, "advanced" mechanic. Most players don't touch that sort of thing. They (rightfully) expect to get a satisfactory roleplaying experience from the list of core classes that the game offers them.

Furthermore, it dilutes your character's identity. You can't be a "Fighter who is good at X" or a "Mage who is good at Y". No, if you want your mage to do certain things decreed to be non-mage-like by the gods at TSR back in the 1980s, you have to explicitly specify that he is no longer as much of a mage.

Basically, it doesn't feel like roleplaying. It feels like a hack.

So, your problem is that someone could be to dumb to use the mechanic and that you can't describe your character in one sentence anymore when you dual or multi class. Okay....


Grunker: but gandalf was not a wizard but more of an angel. I figure you did not read the Silmarillion then?

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

It is pretty hilarious how half the complainers say the classes are too restrictive and the other half say they're not restrictive enough.

It's one argument though. If you're going to have a class-based system, make it a class-based system (which is generally restrictive). If you don't want the restriction of classes, then go the other way and have a classless system.

God damn, shit arguments are gushing out of fanboys today like so many devcocks cumming onto expectant fanboy faces.

 

[Infinitron]

So, your problem is that someone could be to dumb to use the mechanic and that you can't describe your character in one sentence anymore when you dual or multi class. Okay....

Yes, I think something as important as roleplaying a wide variety of archetypes should not be implemented in a such an obtuse, esoteric manner. We can do better than that.

3E already began that journey, by allowing you to take default feats of other classes in lieu of multiclassing to those classes, and generally increasing class flexibility in various ways. Pillars of Eternity is merely bringing that trend to its logical conclusion.

 

[Grunker]

It is pretty hilarious how half the complainers say the classes are too restrictive and the other half say they're not restrictive enough.

It's one argument though. If you're going to have a class-based system, make it a class-based system

Classes don't stop being different because they can train in the same weapons or use armor in a system based on differantiating classes via their active/passive abilities. Do you find the 3.5 fighter is the same as the 3.5 sorcerer?

Just because the system doesn't make classes differ in the same way other systems ONLY fucking AD&D does, doesn't mean the classes aren't different. The critcism that classes are not different enough either shows that you simply have no understanding of PoE's system or that you find AD&D to be the only system in the world with the right differantiation... ironic when you consider the fact that fighter classes had exceedingly few differences from each other in AD&D.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Here's my problem with multi and dual-classing as a solution to the roleplaying problem. First of all, it's very much portrayed as a kind of optional, "advanced" mechanic. Most players don't touch that sort of thing. They (rightfully) expect to get a satisfactory roleplaying experience from the list of core classes that the game offers them.

Maybe but then again I reckon most players don't feel that fighters are weak in BG2 simply because they don't delve deeply into the spell system at all. Instead, they power through the game with hasted/improved hasted fighters (maybe cast a Breach here and there) that chunk everything in sight, party Mage is in strictly support role.

I'm not sure "most players" is that good of an argument anyway, we have no way of really knowing.

Furthermore, it dilutes your character's identity. You can't be a "Fighter who is good at X" or a "Mage who is good at Y". No, if you want your mage to do certain things decreed to be non-mage-like by the gods at TSR back in the 1980s, you have to explicitly specify that he is no longer as much of a mage.

Basically, it doesn't feel like roleplaying. It feels like a hack.

Don't really get this (is it a simulationist argument?). My personal problem with multi and dual-classing is that they make core classes obsolete in a way. Fighter dual classed to a thief is much more powerful than a single class thief for example.

 

[Grunker]

Grunker: but gandalf was not a wizard but more of an angel. I figure you did not read the Silmarillion then?

I'm sorry. The fact that the huge wikipedia-esque background information sourcebook on the universe identifies him as a Maia makes everything completely different. Tolkien obviously meant that as the reason that he could use a sword while other wizards would be met by a great "ERROR" sound if they attempted to pick one up. Of course it makes sense that Sawyer should be beholden to this arbitrary definition of TEH WIZARD (tm) archetype.

Many oldschool systems and fantasy stories have Wizards who can only use magic sparringly and have to engage in combat like everyone else should they be faced with it.

 

[aleph]

I'm sorry. The fact that the huge wikipedia-esque background information sourcebook on the universe identifies him as a Maia makes everything completely different. Tolkien obviously meant that as the reason that he could use a sword while other wizards would be met by a great "ERROR" sound if they attempted to pick one up. Of course it makes sense that Sawyer should be beholden to this.

If we get into that argument, how many (pure) wizards use swords in Fritz Leiber's or Jack Vance books? Or how often does Merlin use a sword?

 

[Starwars]

I'd say I'd agree with Infinitron regarding multi-classing, at least if we're talking about it in cRPG terms. It feels like a very "number-y" and stiff way to expand your character I think. I was a Wizard, but now I am ALSO a Fighter! Maybe I should also be a Cleric! Now I am a 10Wizard/4Fighter/1Cleric! A GM would be able to work with it together with the player to try and make some sense of it roleplaying-wise. But within the limited confines of a cRPG where it can't react to everything dynamically, it feels pretty fucking dumb if you ask me.

I like fiddling around with dual-classing in D&D cRPGs, but it's not because of the roleplaying potential, it's only to experiment what I can create purely mechanically speaking. Not saying that that's terrible on its own but yeah, they don't tend to feel like coherent characters to me. Of course, all balance can also go out the window completely. While Sawyer's balance scheme is not necessarily not something I 100% agree on, sometimes combos in D&D that feel like they *should* work very well conceptually just don't because, the numbers aren't right.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

It is pretty hilarious how half the complainers say the classes are too restrictive and the other half say they're not restrictive enough.

It's one argument though. If you're going to have a class-based system, make it a class-based system

Classes don't stop being different because they can train in the same weapons or use armor in a system based on differantiating classes via their active/passive abilities. Do you find the 3.5 fighter is the same as the 3.5 sorcerer?

Just because the system doesn't make classes differ in the same way other systems ONLY fucking AD&D does, doesn't mean the classes aren't different. The critcism that classes are not different enough either shows that you simply have no understanding of PoE's system or that you find AD&D to be the only system in the world with the right differantiation... ironic when you consider the fact that fighter classes had exceedingly few differences from each other in AD&D.

Then again, if you are allowed to use the sword, you would expect that you can be at least decent with it. And the same goes for armor.

If you're allowed to use them, but it's actually better to use your fists while butt-naked and *NOT* being a monk, something is wrong.

 

[Immortal]

It is pretty hilarious how half the complainers say the classes are too restrictive and the other half say they're not restrictive enough.

It's one argument though. If you're going to have a class-based system, make it a class-based system (which is generally restrictive). If you don't want the restriction of classes, then go the other way and have a classless system.

God damn, shit arguments are gushing out of fanboys today like so many devcocks cumming onto expectant fanboy faces.

Would you be offended if I said your avatar matches your personality perfectly.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Of course it makes sense that Sawyer should be beholden to this arbitrary definition of TEH WIZARD (tm) archetype.

Many oldschool systems and fantasy stories have Wizards who can only use magic sparringly and have to engage in combat like everyone else should they be faced with it.

If this was a new game that wasn't sold as "BG exploration / IWD combat" I would agree entirely. But I think it's fair enough that people expected more similarities to the old games than what they've got, and fair enough that they keep bringing up DnD/IE games.

I guess everyone expected a few changes, but Sawyer probably made the system more different than many expected: some like it, some hate it and some think he didn't go far enough.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

It is pretty hilarious how half the complainers say the classes are too restrictive and the other half say they're not restrictive enough.

It's one argument though. If you're going to have a class-based system, make it a class-based system (which is generally restrictive). If you don't want the restriction of classes, then go the other way and have a classless system.

God damn, shit arguments are gushing out of fanboys today like so many devcocks cumming onto expectant fanboy faces.

Would you be offended if I said your avatar matches your personality perfectly.

Yes.

 

[Grunker]

how often does Merlin use a sword?

But that's not the point. The point is that you are somehow trying to make the argument that because a Wizard hasn't used a sword in your selectively chosen sources, he should not be able to in a completely unrelated game. That's nonsense.

Sawyer is trying to support yours and my definition of wizardry, so he's not forcing anything down our troats. You guys are the ones arguing for a more narrow definition with some disconnected, poor arguments.

I'm glad to see that you let go of that Maia-argument though. That shit topped some of the other arguments.

It is pretty hilarious how half the complainers say the classes are too restrictive and the other half say they're not restrictive enough.

It's one argument though. If you're going to have a class-based system, make it a class-based system

Classes don't stop being different because they can train in the same weapons or use armor in a system based on differantiating classes via their active/passive abilities. Do you find the 3.5 fighter is the same as the 3.5 sorcerer?

Just because the system doesn't make classes differ in the same way other systems ONLY fucking AD&D does, doesn't mean the classes aren't different. The critcism that classes are not different enough either shows that you simply have no understanding of PoE's system or that you find AD&D to be the only system in the world with the right differantiation... ironic when you consider the fact that fighter classes had exceedingly few differences from each other in AD&D.

Then again, if you are allowed to use the sword, you would expect that you can be at least decent with it. And the same goes for armor.

Obviously, if you pick assets within the system that signify training. When have I stated otherwise?

If this was a new game that wasn't sold as "BG exploration / IWD combat" I would agree entirely.

It was clear from the start that PoE wouldn't be D&D-based. In fact, it was one of the first things I criticized. However, had they used that license, they would have probably gone with 3.5 or Pathfinder, something a large margin here and on the Kickstarter comments supported (the few people who were critical of non-P&P systems like me). So even if they had heeded that crowd, we wouldn't have gotten AD&D (THANK FUCKING GOD I might add).

Their responsibility is to the promises they made and the backers. An exceedingly small minority of those would want the return of AD&D. Your argument bites its own tail.

 

[aleph]

But that's not the point. The point is that you are somehow trying to make the argument that because a Wizard hasn't used a sword in your selectively chosen sources, he should not be able to in a completely unrelated game. That's nonsense.

When you say selectively chosen sources, you actually mean source which were the direct inspiration for D&D. And I dimly recall that PoE was supposed to be a spiritual successor to a series of games based very firmly on D&D.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

How often does a wizard BODYBUILD to have more powerful spells?

 

[Grunker]

But that's not the point. The point is that you are somehow trying to make the argument that because a Wizard hasn't used a sword in your selectively chosen sources, he should not be able to in a completely unrelated game. That's nonsense.

When you say selectively chosen sources, you actually mean source which were the direct inspiration for D&D

No, I don't. LotR supports Wizards with swords. The fact that Gandalf is Maia has nothing to do with his ability to pick up a blade. But this argument is pointless and retarded. As if Sawyer was in any way beholden to copy-paste Tolkien's definition of a Wizard into PoE. No fucking D&D cRPG has done that. Many exist where Wizard's can use swords.

This is one of the most retarded debates I've had on the subject of PoE.