Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[ZagorTeNej]

The only attributes I see as problems are Strength and Perception. Perception seems really pointless without a high accuracy, in most cases you are much better off bumping Dexterity instead.
Critical Hits are only scored when your accuracy is equal to the defender's defense - then you have a 5% chance to crit, if your accuracy is five points lower (equivalent to +1), you have 0% chance. If it's higher then it increases exponentially.

These games are generally designed with your party going up against content that is equal level or a few levels higher, so in order for Perception to be a good choice you have to pump the fuck out of dex as well.

It is *possible* that this isn't as big of an issue if there are a lot of ways to drop the deflection score of enemies.

But still, Strength and Perception don't seem as good as the other four stats. I think they need a bit more work, but obviously Josh has better things to do.

Hopefully these are moddable.

But won't mages have a much lower defense than other classes (all other things being equal, I doubt you'll often be fighting mages that are much higher level than you)? Therefore if you're say trying to build a rogue mage killer you'd still have a decent chance of scoring critical on enemy mages (therefore making PE useful) even if you don't invest that much in DEX.

 

[Sensuki]

Yeah certain classes will have shitty deflection. Fighters and Paladins will be hard to crit though.

You need accuracy along with it though, so in order for that PER to pay off you also need to raise dex a bit IMO.

Actually hmm, every class will probably have at least one shitty defense. So for certain classes it would be useful - Wizards, Ciphers etc

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Yeah certain classes will have shitty deflection. Fighters and Paladins will be hard to crit though.

You need accuracy along with it though, so in order for that PER to pay off you also need to raise dex a bit IMO.

How do the sneak attacks work though? Will you gain a bonus to accuracy with your rogue every time you attack enemy from behind or just when you sneak up on him?

 

[Sensuki]

Sneak attacks are automatic and its percentage based damage. To trigger it it requires certain conditions on the target - flanking might be one, then you've got blind, held, stun, slept & shit I guess, there's probably quite a few status effects that trigger SAs and Rogues have abilities to cause them.

 

[DraQ]

Fuck yeah. The very problem with "non-gamey" systems is that if I want to actually play the game to the best of my ability - use my systemic understanding to make good, strategic decisions in the character system - I'm forced to play fighters with 3 in all mental stats or whatever.

*complains about "non-gamey" systems*

*uses situation where mental stats have no impact whatsoever unless you're a caster as an example of "non-gaminess"*

It's always a choice between LARPing (ie giving the fighter 15 int because that's how I "feel" about my character), or do the munchkin: abort all immersion in the character system to feel that I have made the best possible strategic choices.

At the end of the day, the realist-crowd's arguments are empty, hypothetical and void. The best realistic system in existance - GURPS - is insanely gamist at the same time. All systems are equally structured from the same universal mechanics and all somewhat equally useful to spent points in.

So gamist is now simulationist and anything not hilariously broken is now gamist because :Grunker:.
Why the fuck do I even bother?

Systems are flowing abstractions.

Yes.

Anything that empowers the user to make meaningful choices framed in the fiction is a good thing.

Ummm... Yes?

Arguing for arbitrary, subjective standards of realism is the most basic of internet-grognardism. Something we did when we were 15 and argued how to make one of the most contrived systems ever - AD&D - more "realistic."

Contrived doesn't equal realistic or good. It's usually the sign that fundamental design is fucked up requiring progressively more contrived workarounds to work or make any sense, while it should've been scrapped instead.

It is only logical for strength to let you put more force behind a blow. The amount of force behind for example a sword thrust could be the difference between causing a light wound or driving the sword through the monster's body.

You don't need to be a fucking superman to run someone through with a sword.

If you can do this already, what will extra str do? Will you push crossguard through the guy as well? Whole arm? Dive whole into the fucking wound creating massive tear as wide as your manly shoulders?

Once you have enough STR to use weapon with no penalties, that's it.
That's why you shouldn't have STR based damage bonus, but weapon based penalties for not meeting its stat requirements.

Not only is this logical, but it's the way these stats have worked since the beginning of time.

That's not logical. That's merely traditional and doesn't mean it isn't shit.

I don't think the problem is the damage bonus that comes from intellect (though I'd still prefer "Intellect" to be renamed) it's the fact that strength has nothing to do with damage. It doesn't make sense.

I like your typo.


Anyway, I would object to INT based damage bonus in directly controlled solo RT FPP RPG, because it gives you fine enough control for smart fighting to not be abstractable, but in a game that gives you a bunch of sprirtes or models performing token fighting animations viewed zoomed out from above it's totally OK with me.

You know people, I think you're oversimplifying the INT thing. INT's bonuses are likely to be tied to an abstraction of more fighting techniques learned. Or battlefield manipulation.

Or opponent manipulation.

Intellect is there as an auxiliary in the creation of swashbucklery characters. Those whose greatest strenght in melee is their wit. The issue you're looking for is that there's a dissonance between what you see (characters hitting each other) and the actual narrative behind that. Its not much unlike the idea that you see characters trading blows even if one of them critically missed -- the rules and the roles tell a story independent of the game's visual cues.

Except that here you've got a character that seemingly fights in a straightforward manner but doesn't. He's using his smarts in order to outwit his enemies in a way that isn't really exclusive to him, but is his specialty. What he's doing is misleading the enemies' blows to make them drop their defenses, manipulating the battlefield; assessing the enemies' strenghts and weaknesses and, maybe, he knows where to hit for massive damage a la Zelda. Essentially, this character doesn't, necessarily, have a 'strong punch'. He's not magically stronger because he's smart, though he may also be a strong guy.

To some, sucha visual dissonance is an issue. To me, not particularly, no. As I said, tactical games are rife with them. But it does take some getting used to them.

Thats an archtype dude. A nobel prize in psychology has a better chance of spliting a brick in half with his punch than an orc? what.the.fuck.
Its not visual disonance, assesing the enemy, misleading him, thats combat training, or knowledge, or w/e, there are already perks and shit youll be getting that will prove how good you are at doing that. sheer power behind a fist is in no way related to intelligence.

Attempting to explain it is really... well, dumb. There is no possible explanation as to why bob the scientist can hit a wall harder than jack the boxer because of smarts and purely because of smarts, with no tools.

Guys, did you know that in Wizardry 8 both close combat and ranged combat skills are governed by INT and SEN?

If instead of armor class it was called Defense Value, then no one would say a thing.

No because it would still suffer from the issues highlighted by my monk VS knight example.

No matter how you name it conflating active dodging with passive armor is asking for trouble.

 

[Infinitron]

Dunno if you guys noticed but Josh posted tons more in that thread.

Example (speaking about the problems with making STR a requirement for using weapons): http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64712-attribute-theory/?p=1401049

The other problem it creates is tiered weapon types, which narrows certain classes/builds into using the higher tier weapons exclusively. A/D&D has never had particularly great weapon balance, but the contrast became stark in 3.X and even more clearly delineated in 4E. No fighter would regularly use a Simple Weapon in 3E because its Martial equivalents are almost universally superior. And of course, in 4E, no fighter would regularly use a Simple over a Military or a Military over Superior assuming they can take the requisite feat. More than even 3.X, 4E funnels characters into lifelong equipment types based around what's ideal for their stats. If you're wearing some form of hide armor and using a bastard sword at 5th level, you're probably going to be using more magical versions of the same stuff at 10th, 15th, and 20th level.

The reason I think this is not particularly great is because it effectively removes (or at least drastically simplifies) decision-making for the character. Entire classifications of weapons and armor wind up essentially being junk choices. E.g. medium armor in 3.X is a plague upon almost any character. If you have no Dex bonus, you're going to wear heavy armor. Once you get full plate, you're going to wear full plate forever if at all possible. If you have a high Dex bonus, you're going to wear light armor. Once you get a chain shirt, you're going to wear a chain shirt forever if at all possible.

I put STR reqs on weapons in F:NV to give more importance to STR, but I think it messed with the balance of weapons. High STR weapons didn't just have to be balanced relative to weapons in their tier. They had to be balanced relative to other weapons in their tier as superior weapons because they required an investment from the player to properly use them.

Strength is one of the most difficult attributes to find immediate and universal applications for that don't wreak havoc with other game systems. Damage superficially makes sense but makes less sense when you think about attacks that aren't powered by the physical strength of the wielder.

As I wrote earlier, these are what we're working with now. As we keep testing and listening to feedback, we may move them around.

More:

I believe every attribute, if dumped, should harm every build because there are two logical consequences if they do not:

1) If I can dump without significant consequence, it is likely (though not necessarily true) that bumping it is similarly without consequence. This means character concepts that bump that attribute are inherently worse off for having done so.

2) If one class can dump stats without significant consequence and others cannot, in practice that class has more attribute points to play with. E.g. fighters vs. monks and paladins in 3.5. When one class has abilities that derive benefits from a narrow range of attributes, it becomes difficult to balance their powers against classes that derive benefits from a broader range of attributes.

 

[Lhynn]

bullshit about weapon requeriments

No you dumb, dumb man. It is not the same once you get the bare minimum to swing it, because stuff with lots of endurance can take a lot of punishment, ergo, the harder you swing the faster that stupid big thing is going to fall down. Take a hammer to a car and the strength of the people hitting it does matter.

something about wizardry 8

Yes, i agree that weapon damage could be drawn from int, never said it couldnt, ever, ever. What i did say is that no one is born with that ability, you learn it, it is, as you said, a SKILL. What i dont agree with is bears that are nobel in chemistry.

Spoiler

something martial artists

Touch AC.

 

[Midair]

Looking for a little company, big boy? I do graphics.

In other iso games, it appears that while the background lacks any perspective, the character sprites may have been rendered with some perspective, or even from a lower camera angle, in order to show the character model in its best view.

PE's characters appear rendered from the exact same camera angle and isometric perspective of the backgrounds. That seems sensible, but this might be why characters' posture looks odd, because the lack of perspective makes their legs look large and their shoulders look small.

Just something I thought I noticed when looking at trying to make some isometric graphics. It could be all in my head, but it seems that using a different perspective for backgrounds and characters can produce a better result. I wonder if Obsidian could tweak the perspective on the characters in Unity and if it would look better.

 

[Abelian]

Once you have enough STR to use weapon with no penalties, that's it.
That's why you shouldn't have STR based damage bonus, but weapon based penalties for not meeting its stat requirements.

I've never thought about it that way, but it does make sense. Combined with learnable weapon skills, it could make an interesting damage model for weapon proficiencies. It result in a two-factor authentication system for "unlocking" a weapon: what you have (strength) and what you know (skill) .

 

[sea]

Example (speaking about the problems with making STR a requirement for using weapons): http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64712-attribute-theory/?p=1401049

Hmm.

I'm not sure tiering weapons is a big issue. It's a way of regulating damage output of certain classes. The idea is that a STR-oriented fighter will always do more damage with a bigger, better weapon than a smaller one, and that makes sense.

Raw damage can be balanced in any number of ways. Protection spells, armor penetration, number of attacks, etc. can all help make up for it. Damage types also have a big impact on this sort of thing. A fighter should be stronger than a rogue and that should be down to the weapons used, all things being equal - but in most RPGs a "fair fight" doesn't exist when things like magic or armor are involved. That fighter could be made substantially less effective than a rogue with a different weapon, different stats, etc. depending on the situation.

Eternity is a party-based game. Ensuring there is enough nuance in different pieces of equipment, it's not like the party is going to be made up only of fighters that have high STR and all use the same equipment. The class balance and limitations of fighters should ensure that is not possible, or if it is, it's sub-ideal and probably really boring or stupid to play. Therefore I'm not sure the "variety" thing is really a problem at all. You can have variety within a class of weapons and it's sufficient. It seems kinda like Sawyer is looking for problems that are more academic than especially gameplay-affecting.

 

[uaciaut]

Also, weapons are heavy, so you obviously need strength to use them effectively.

Heavy weapons are a misconception unless you're dealing with extreme WoW-stylized stuff that wouldn't be practical in reality.

Hah, you're trolling i hope. You can;t actually be dumb enough to think an epee is as easy to wield as a battle axe or a 2h sword.

You know people, I think you're oversimplifying the INT thing. INT's bonuses are likely to be tied to an abstraction of more fighting techniques learned. Or battlefield manipulation.

That's fine, but how does Int get to be the only thing that affects damage while Str has 0 influence on it.

 

[Irxy]

The other problem it creates is tiered weapon types, which narrows certain classes/builds into using the higher tier weapons exclusively. A/D&D has never had particularly great weapon balance, but the contrast became stark in 3.X and even more clearly delineated in 4E. No fighter would regularly use a Simple Weapon in 3E because its Martial equivalents are almost universally superior. And of course, in 4E, no fighter would regularly use a Simple over a Military or a Military over Superior assuming they can take the requisite feat. More than even 3.X, 4E funnels characters into lifelong equipment types based around what's ideal for their stats. If you're wearing some form of hide armor and using a bastard sword at 5th level, you're probably going to be using more magical versions of the same stuff at 10th, 15th, and 20th level.

Don't see any problem in this as well. So a warrior prefers his greatsword to a dagger or a club and that limits his choices? Rrright. If anything, the weapon focus feats limit it, not the obvious superiority of military weapons to kitchen utility.
Balance for the sake of balance is just stupid, especially when it sacrifices common sense while ignoring many other means to balance the system.
"Strength requirement on heavy axes limits wizard's choices", yeaaah.

 

[FeelTheRads]

If you can't finish the game with a kitchen knife it's not an RPG. This is what balancefags think.

 

[Irxy]

It's actually very similar to how Bioware thinks, that all choices should be equal and none should punish the players.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Eternity is a party-based game. Ensuring there is enough nuance in different pieces of equipment, it's not like the party is going to be made up only of fighters that have high STR and all use the same equipment. The class balance and limitations of fighters should ensure that is not possible, or if it is, it's sub-ideal and probably really boring or stupid to play. Therefore I'm not sure the "variety" thing is really a problem at all. You can have variety within a class of weapons and it's sufficient. It seems kinda like Sawyer is looking for problems that are more academic than especially gameplay-affecting.

But that's the problem, Josh doesn't want you to feel gimped (whether because it's more boring, significantly harder, feels stupid etc. ) regardless of the party composition you choose, so if I create a party consisting solely of dagger wielding fighters I shouldn't have a significantly harder time than a party of two handed sword wielding warriors or a traditional RPG party (say warrior, mage, thief and priest) or any other wacky party/weapon composition you come up with, same goes for stats allocation (while there are still more effective combination for a specific class there are supposedly no "bad" characters).

A commendable goal perhaps but IMO one that is nigh unreachable without sacrifices made regarding complexity, encounter design and challenge.

If you can do this already, what will extra str do? Will you push crossguard through the guy as well? Whole arm? Dive whole into the fucking wound creating massive tear as wide as your manly shoulders?

Once you have enough STR to use weapon with no penalties, that's it.
That's why you shouldn't have STR based damage bonus, but weapon based penalties for not meeting its stat requirements..

I like this but this is a fantasy game afterall, what if you're facing a dragon who has nigh unpenetrable hide, shouldn't extra STR benefit you then?

Hah, you're trolling i hope. You can;t actually be dumb enough to think an epee is as easy to wield as a battle axe or a 2h sword.

Not as easy obviously but overstated in some games, here's a two handed sword in real life:

 

[FeelTheRads]

A commendable goal perhaps but IMO one that is nigh unreachable without sacrifices made regarding complexity, encounter design and challenge.

Of course it's unreachable.

When you start with the premise that the game should be molded on the players you're doing popamole by design. Because RPGs are not about riding on a horse killing things, they're about learning to ride that horse and figuring out how the fuck to kill those things.

For fuck's sake, if you want to make it so every possible build finishes the game, give the player more options in how to approach the obstacles and make him look for them rather than make the Dagger of Ultimate Doom.
And some builds SHOULD have it harder or much harder than others. If you think that means punishing the player you probably shouldn't design RPGs.

 

[imweasel]

Not as easy obviously but overstated in some games, here's a two handed sword in real life:

Forget the real world, Pillars of Eternity will turn fat asses into a great warriors.

 

[Infinitron]

It's actually very similar to how Bioware thinks, that all choices should be equal and none should punish the players.

Sure you'll be punished. If you use a weapon that isn't strong against a certain kind of enemy, you'll do worse in combat and might die.

It's a different challenge factor. The challenge isn't "build the right character and breeze through combat, otherwise suffer" ala Fallout. The challenge is "make the right choices in combat, otherwise suffer".

Seriously, what's so hardcore about locking you to a certain kind of weapon? SWORDS ARE STRONGER THAN DAGGERS, I AM SO SMART THAT I REALIZE THIS

so if I create a party consisting solely of dagger wielding fighters I shouldn't have a significantly harder time than a party of two handed sword wielding warriors or a traditional RPG party

No, that is not the design goal in Pillars of Eternity. How many times do we have to go over this?

The game encourages switching weapons in and out. If you don't do that, you'll fail at playing the game and do worse in combat.

 

[FeelTheRads]

How does it encourage switching weapons if the game doesn't even feature immunities to damage types? Are there even resistances to damage types?
Other games encourage it too with various immunities or resistances.

"build the right character and breeze through combat, otherwise suffer"

Seriously, what's so hardcore about locking you to a certain kind of weapon? SWORDS ARE STRONGER THAN DAGGERS, I AM SO SMART THAT I REALIZE THIS

And this is a complete misunderstanding of RPGs. How many times do we have to go over this?

 

[Infinitron]

Are there even resistances to damage types?

Of course. On armor, for instance: http://eternity.gamepedia.com/Armor

The game also encourages you swap to different types of armor in and out, depending on the enemy that you're facing.

It's similar to late game BG2, where the magical abilities on your equipment begin to overwhelm the simple numerical bonuses granted by your weapon skills and it becomes worthwhile to switch to weapon types you aren't proficient with.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

No, that is not the design goal in Pillars of Eternity. How many times do we have to go over this?

The game encourages switching weapons in and out. If you don't do that, you'll fail at playing the game and do worse in combat.

Go over what dude? Every build (class/stat allocation) and party composition should be viable, that's according to Josh. Considering his opinion on enemy mages in BG2 I've concluded that viable for Josh means a bit more than just being able to finish the game with it but rather not noticeably harder/less efficient compared to other classes/builds. That design approach/philosophy makes it harder for the game to feature interesting and challenging encounter design (IMO obviously).

So I was wrong about the weapon selection carrying the same approach? Good then, If the game often encourages me to switch between weapons during combat there might be some use for STR afterall.

P.S. I don't consider myself failing at playing the game unless my PC or one of the other party members dies.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

When you start with the premise that the game should be molded on the players you're doing popamole by design. Because RPGs are not about riding on a horse killing things, they're about learning to ride that horse and figuring out how the fuck to kill those things.

For fuck's sake, if you want to make it so every possible build finishes the game, give the player more options in how to approach the obstacles and make him look for them rather than make the Dagger of Ultimate Doom.
And some builds SHOULD have it harder or much harder than others. If you think that means punishing the player you probably shouldn't design RPGs.

Not all RPGs are the same, IE games mostly are about killing things and exploring, not about having many different options\approaches to solving quests or something (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, I loved sidequests in BG2 regardless).

 

[Irxy]

The game also encourages you swap to different types of armor in and out, depending on the enemy that you're facing.

Isn't it metagaming? Most fights should not be planned, and I don't see how keeping a wagon of weapons/armor for swapping is fun or realistic or tactical, when instead of dealing with the situation with the resources you happened to have you are encouraged to reload.

Seriously, what's so hardcore about locking you to a certain kind of weapon? SWORDS ARE STRONGER THAN DAGGERS, I AM SO SMART THAT I REALIZE THIS

Are you talking about common sense as if it's something bad?

 

[Infinitron]

Considering his opinion on enemy mages in BG2 I've concluded that viable for Josh means a bit more than just being able to finish the game with it but rather not noticeably harder/less efficient compared to other classes/builds.

It's more like "every build is viable, but not every build is equally easy to use or appropriate for every single encounter".

P.S. I don't consider myself failing at playing the game unless my PC or one of the other party members dies.

I don't know about dying, but if you can't progress because you keep getting knocked unconscious and have to keep retreating to rest spots to regain your health, then I would consider that a failure too.

Isn't it metagaming? Most fights should not be planned, and I don't see how keeping a wagon of weapons/armor for swapping is fun or realistic or tactical, when instead of dealing with the situation with the resources you happened to have you are encouraged to reload.

You can swap weapons during combat if they're in your "belt". I don't see anything wrong with a bit of reloading, though. And you can't carry a wagon of weapons because inventories are smaller in Eternity than they were in the IE games.

Are you talking about common sense as if it's something bad?

It's not bad, just mundane.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

It's more like "every build is viable, but not every build is equally easy to use or appropriate for every single encounter"

Sounds great in theory but he sure seemed butthurt about party with mage(s) having an easier time dealing with enemy mages compared to other classes in BG2 (he even claimed you can't get past certain encounters if you don't have a mage IIRC which is BS obviously), I hope the difference of how different classes/builds do in different situations will be actually noticeable.

I don't know about dying, but if you can't progress because you keep getting knocked unconscious and have to keep retreating to rest spots to regain your health, then I would consider that a failure too.

Same thing for me as dying, I didn't rest spam in IE games and I won't retreat in PE either (especially given the unlimited stash).