Eternity Does Pillars of Eternity have feature parity with Baldur's Gate?

[Cross]

Nobody's going to even mention the fact that the dwarf is an archer?

You need long arms for archery, especially with medieval era tech.

This is why dwarfs are usually either shown with crossbows or guns in most media.

Way to fail every step of the way, man. Just like Dragon Age.

There's nothing mechanical that prevents dwarfs from using bows in any Pillars or D&D game.

In fact, considering Sagani, you are literally a decade late with this criticism.

D&D has rules on weapon sizes. Depending on the edition, smaller races are either unable to wield bigger weapons or receive penalties. I think a longbow is considered a big weapon.

For big AAA games they've definitely always been technically inept, but Grounded and Deadfire look great and highly polished within their own genre.

Maybe not inept, but spending almost 3 years to make a game more primitive than even the first Baldur's Gate (despite having the advantage of far more advanced tools), and then spending the next few years furiously patching it, is hardly something worth bragging about.

The environment art in PoE and Deadfire is gorgeous though.

 

[Roguey]

D&D has rules on weapon sizes. Depending on the edition, smaller races are either unable to wield bigger weapons or receive penalties. I think a longbow is considered a big weapon.

I do not recall having any issues with bows and dwarves in any D&D video game unless there was a class restriction.

a game more primitive than even the first Baldur's Gate

This is objectively wrong. Pillars of Eternity has far more features and scripting than Baldur's Gate. I would have preferred it if they had made the character system as basic as 2e's.

 

[MjKorz]

a game more primitive than even the first Baldur's Gate

Are you talking about Pillars of Eternity? What the fuck?

 

[Cross]

This is objectively wrong. Pillars of Eternity has far more features and scripting than Baldur's Gate.

It's objectively correct. Having a billion abilities doesn't mean much if they're just different flavors of the same thing. Pillars of Eternity doesn't even have something as basic as an invisibility spell.

The companions in Baldur's Gate are little more than fantasy archetypes, but there are a lot more of them, 25 vs. the 8 that PoE had pre-expansion, and they do have interactions with each other and in some cases what could be considered basic companion quests (e.g. rescuring Dynaheir). PoE has a much bigger word count, but while the companions are obviously much more fleshed out, they have little actual content. At best, it's a wash between the two games, considering how Baldur's Gate's party roster is triple the size and PoE's companion design being a downgrade from previous Obsidian games.

 

[Roguey]

Pillars of Eternity doesn't even have something as basic as an invisibility spell.

This was a deliberate balance decision, Sawyer did not want spells that would do what skills do. PoE has a stealth system that's far less rudimentary than BG's.

Pillars has a much bigger word count, but the companions have little actual content. At best, it's a wash between the two games, considering how Baldur's Gate's party roster is triple the size of that of PoE.

Every companion in PoE has a personal quest and more dialogue than all the companions in BG combined. When Sawyer introduced BG-style sidekicks in Deadfire, the reception was negative enough to convince him it wasn't worth trying again in the future. Most people who play RPGs would not put up with it now. They'd reject an RPG as basic as the first Baldur's Gate.

 

[MjKorz]

It's objectively correct. Having a billion abilities doesn't mean much if they're just different flavors of the same thing. Pillars of Eternity doesn't even have something as basic as an invisibility spell.

The companions in Baldur's Gate are little more than fantasy archetypes, but there are a lot more of them, 25 vs. the 8 that Pillars had pre-expansion, and they do have interactions with each other and in some cases what could be considered very basic companion quests (e.g. rescuring Dynaheir). Pillars has a much bigger word count, but the companions have little actual content. At best, it's a wash between the two games, considering how Baldur's Gate's party roster is triple the size of that of PoE.

No, it isn't. Literally everything you've stated is wrong.

Classes have unique ability/spell pools that create class identity: tactical niches classes can occupy via certain builds. Even if some spells between different classes are similar, ability/spell pools as a whole ensure that some classes are better at some things and worse at others.

Pillars companions are far better developed than BG companions and their personal quests are more complex. They also have plenty of interactions with each other with the sole exception being Grieving Mother - the biggest pile of verbal diarrhea Avellone has ever produced.

There is no wash, BG combat mechanics and companion characterization are primitive compared to Pillars, not the other way around.

EDIT: and I forgot to mention, if you want more cardboard cutout party members with no personality, just get some mercs.

 

[0sacred]

No, it isn't. Literally everything you've stated is wrong.

Classes have unique ability/spell pools that create class identity:

good thing AD&D 2nd Ed. didn't have class identity, retard.

 

[MjKorz]

good thing AD&D 2nd Ed. didn't have class identity,

First of all, that part of my post was addressing the following comment:

Having a billion abilities doesn't mean much if they're just different flavors of the same thing.

Having many abilities that may share some functional similarities is meaningful, when they belong to different class ability pools, pools that are tailored towards different tactical niches, which creates class identity.

Secondly, I see you're back for another ass pounding with your retarded strawman pulls (no homo).

 

[Vulpes]

good thing AD&D 2nd Ed. didn't have class identity, retard.

The ruleset in BG1&2 was half-assed at best. Even though it's far from perfect, Bioware did a better job of implementing 3E in NWN

 

[RunningWolf]

Pillars companions are far better developed than BG companions and their personal quests are more complex

That's like saying a pile of horeshit is better developed than a spoon of caviar. Technically true, but not in the sense you would hope. All Obsidian games would benefit from companions being LESS developed, preferably into non-existence.

 

[0sacred]

good thing AD&D 2nd Ed. didn't have class identity,

First of all, that part of my post was addressing the following comment:

Having a billion abilities doesn't mean much if they're just different flavors of the same thing.

You strongly seemed to imply PoE has better class identity than Infinity Engine games, seeing as you're sucking Sawyer cock in your post. Which isn't true.

Characters are more flexible in PoE, diluting unique class identity. Virtually every class in PoE can be played as melee or ranged, for example. This includes run off the mill wizards. In AD&D, this required a certain class combination (Fighter and Mage in the mix). PoE Barbarians are AoE damage dealers like wizards and druids, but are also martials. The list goes on.

 

[0sacred]

good thing AD&D 2nd Ed. didn't have class identity, retard.

The ruleset in BG1&2 was half-assed at best. Even though it's far from perfect, Bioware did a better job of implementing 3E in NWN

They also forgot to implement a game while they were at it

 

[Spukrian]

D&D has rules on weapon sizes. Depending on the edition, smaller races are either unable to wield bigger weapons or receive penalties. I think a longbow is considered a big weapon.

I do not recall having any issues with bows and dwarves in any D&D video game unless there was a class restriction.

Dwarfs are not small size in D&D, so they can wield large weapons.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Only thing that I actively dislike about the PoE system is the way in which attributes unconventionally map onto classes. It's fine as a purely mechanical system, but it turns silly when those attributes also influence the dialogue since it's a having your cake and eating it too sort of situation. It ruins the traditional class fantasies of D&D style RPGs while also not providing lore justifications for it (e.g. for stuff like high STR MIG pure casters).

 

[Cross]

Every companion in PoE has a personal quest and more dialogue than all the companions in BG combined.

I already pointed out the PoE companions are more fleshed out and have more dialogue than the ones in BG1. But the actual companion quests in PoE are quite simplistic, nor do they reward you with new abilities or stat boosts like the companion "quests" in Mask of the Betrayer, Kotor 2 or PS:T. The companion writing isn't good either, with the possible exception of Durance.

The point is that while the BG1 companions have very basic interactions, there are far more of them, 25 vs. the 8 that PoE had pre-expansion, so it's essentially a wash between the two games. Frankly, the companion in-fighting in BG1 is a lot more interesting than PoE's anemic companion content.

This was a deliberate balance decision, Sawyer did not want spells that would do what skills do. PoE has a stealth system that's far less rudimentary than BG's.

PoE's stealth is not a substitute for true invisibility. The point is that even Baldur's Gate 1 has much more spell variety than PoE.

 

[MjKorz]

PoE has better class identity than Infinity Engine games

Correct. Most martial classes in infinity engine games are just auto-attack bots with barely any (if any) combat maneuvers to separate them. PoE approaches the issue of class identity far better than any IE game by providing each class with their pool of spells/abilities that are tailored towards certain tactical niches.

Characters are more flexible in PoE

If you want them to be. They can also be made to specialize in certain aspects of their kit far more acutely than IE characters who in fact end up being more flexible than specialized PoE characters. The humble IE fighter is the best example: unless you completely gimp a fighter's stats (i.e. dump strength), your fighter will be able to both dish out good damage and provide good tanking just by switching gear. In PoE, switching gear alone is not going to make your fighter excel in either tanking or damage dealing, you have to actually build for it and once you do, the opportunity cost will prevent you from exceling in the opposite aspect. In the end, the IE Fighter ends up having less class identity due to being a simply unremarkable stat-block with its only purpose in battle being auto-attacking - same thing other martial classes can do.

PoE Barbarians are AoE damage dealers

If you want them to be. I'm sorry to disappoint, but the high-INT barbarian meme is only one way to build a barbarian, not the only one.

In the end, many IE classes lack identity due to martial capability overlap, martial capability which includes nothing else other than an auto-attack, while PoE martial capability includes a unique ability pool. Moreover, IE classes lack character building depth and customization, providing very little opportunities for true specialization in not just a single weapon, but certain combat tactics.

 

[0sacred]

PoE has better class identity than Infinity Engine games

Correct. Most martial classes in infinity engine games are just auto-attack bots with barely any (if any) combat maneuvers to separate them. PoE approaches the issue of class identity far better than any IE game by providing each class with their pool of spells/abilities that are tailored towards certain tactical niches.

If you can play a Wizard as both a nuker or a melee fighter like a martial, that's a diluted class identity. And you can do this with virtually all PoE classes.
In AD&D the front line was clearly the domain of martials and fighter multiclasses.

PoE Barbarians are AoE damage dealers

If you want them to be. I'm sorry to disappoint, but the high-INT barbarian meme is only one way to build a barbarian, not the only one.

low INT Barbs are probably not optimal though, so yes, the splash damage is core to the class.

In the end, many IE classes lack identity due to martial capability overlap, martial capability which includes nothing else other than an auto-attack, while PoE martial capability includes a unique ability pool. Moreover, IE classes lack character building depth and customization, providing very little opportunities for true specialization in not just a single weapon, but certain combat tactics.

There's more to do with martials in IE than auto-attack but nice strawman.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

When Sawyer introduced BG-style sidekicks in Deadfire, the reception was negative enough to convince him it wasn't worth trying again in the future.

Deadfire sidekicks were received negatively because they're extremely half-assed and poorly executed. But it'd be textbook Sawyerim to fuck something up and then proclaim people don't want that feature anyway.

 

[Roguey]

But the actual companion quests in PoE are quite simplistic, nor do they reward you with new abilities or stat boosts like the companion "quests" in Mask of the Betrayer, Kotor 2 or PS:T.

The comparison wasn't between PoE and MotB (an expansion), Kotor 2 (a same-engine sequel), or Torment (a game that took advantage of all the work Bioware had already done with the Infinity Engine). It was between PoE and BG.

The point is that while the BG1 companions have very basic interactions, there are far more of them, 25 vs. the 8 that PoE had pre-expansion, so it's essentially a wash between the two games.

When it comes to the amount of work involved in implementing them, not at all. A lot more work went into PoE's companions than BG's.

Frankly, the companion in-fighting in BG1 is a lot more interesting than PoE's anemic companion content.

Subjective.

PoE's stealth is not a substitute for true invisibility. The point is that even Baldur's Gate 1 has much more spell variety than PoE.

Yeah, invisibility is flat out better than stealth which is the reason for not including it.

BG has 102 spells, PoE has 162 by my count. And on top of that it has a whole bunch of talents and abilities that Bioware didn't have to bother with for AD&D, crafting systems, and a stronghold system. There are spells that Sawyer deliberately didn't include, either because they were redundant/made a skill pointless, or because they were simply too shitty (there are a good number of worthless/novelty spells in BG), but it still involved more work for Obsidian to implement them all.

Deadfire sidekicks were received negatively because they're extremely half-assed and poorly executed. But it'd be textbook Sawyerim to fuck something up and then proclaim people don't want that feature anyway.

Describe the ways in which sidekicks are worse than BG's companions. The criticism that Sawyer talks about is that people who liked the sidekicks were irritated that they don't talk enough.

 

[MjKorz]

If you can play a Wizard as both a nuker or a melee fighter like a martial, that's a diluted class identity.

No, it isn't. A wizard damage dealer, disabler or melee wizard play nothing alike relative to other damage dealers, disablers or melee classes. Statements like these immediately out you as someone who has not even played the game, if you think playing a wizard tank or a wizard damage dealer with Citzal's Spirit Lance is similar to playing a Fighter with a 2h weapon. This is such a suspicious and retarded statement that I will have to ask proof that you've actually played the game. Of course, I will immediately provide proof of my own:

Spoiler

In the example of the wizard that you've provided, class identity remains intact due a radically different pool of abilities between the martial wizard and the actual martial. In fact, this difference is greater than the difference between any two IE martials.

And you can do this with virtually all PoE classes.

Not virtually all (the rogue is notoriously inflexible) and through a unique pool of abilities that makes the classes play differently, creating class identity.

In AD&D the front line was clearly the domain of martials and fighter multiclasses.

It wasn't. A cleric could easily remain on the frontlines, tanking and auto-attacking just like a pure martial, except that same cleric is also capable of extra spells that the martial does not have. In fact, the cleric is so powerful in these IE games and in some DnD editions, that it can usurp the role of a pure martial, absolutely annihilating class identity. Ever heard of a Codzilla? Meanwhile, in PoE martials, wizards and clerics have their own unique ability pools that create distinct class identity.

There's more to do with martials in IE

Mhm, like the monk using stunning fist? Amazing class identity, truly ground shattering. How can PoE compare with its unique ability pools for every class!?

 

[0sacred]

If you can play a Wizard as both a nuker or a melee fighter like a martial, that's a diluted class identity.

No, it isn't. A wizard damage dealer, disabler or melee wizard play nothing alike relative to other damage dealers, disablers or melee classes. Statements like these immediately out you as someone who has not even played the game, if you think playing a wizard tank or a wizard damage dealer with Citzal's Spirit Lance is similar to playing a Fighter with a 2h weapon. This is such a suspicious and retarded statement that I will have to ask proof that you've actually played the game. Of course, I will immediately provide proof of my own:

Spoiler

Wow dude I wouldn't have believed you've played that shit game that you're ecstatic about. As for me, I played PoE before plowing your mom every night, just ask her.

In the example of the wizard that you've provided, class identity remains intact due a radically different pool of abilities between the martial wizard and the actual martial. In fact, this difference is greater than the difference between any two IE martials.

The point is you can take a run off the mill PoE wizard and play him as a front liner. I don't care if you cast spells or use weapons to attack (you can definitely do the latter too). This isn't possible with an AD&D Mage.

In AD&D the front line was clearly the domain of martials and fighter multiclasses.

It wasn't. A cleric could easily remain on the frontlines, tanking and auto-attacking just like a pure martial, except that same cleric is also capable of extra spells that the martial does not have. In fact, the cleric is so powerful in these IE games and in some DnD editions, that it can usurp the role of a pure martial, absolutely annihilating class identity. Every heard of a Codzilla? Meanwhile, in PoE martials, wizards and clerics have their own unique ability pools that create distinct class identity.

Yes, clerics can tank, though in IE games you would almost always use Fighter as a multiclass. We aren't talking about P&P and Codzilla and other retardations here (which was 3rd edition anyway IIRC).

Mhm, like the monk using stunning fist? Amazing class identity, truly ground shattering. How can PoE comapre with its unique ability pools for every class!?

There's symmetry though. Enemies in PoE pull stupid status effects out of their ass virtually every fight, which you counter with even more retarded status effect layers. AD&D classes were distinct but in subtle and simple ways.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Describe the ways in which sidekicks are worse than BG's companions. The criticism that Sawyer talks about is that people who liked the sidekicks were irritated that they don't talk enough.

To equal the amount of work that went into sidekicks, you can upload some portait mods, make a custom hirling and record yourself yelling "advance!" "retreat" "ooga booga fireball" to have some combat barks.

They half-assed that shit in like 5 minutes before release, it's lowest effort possible filler content.

 

[MjKorz]

I played PoE

No, you didn't. It was immediately obvious the moment you started talking about PoE melee wizards playing like PoE fighters, your inability to provide proof was needed only for confirmation. In essence, I am dealing with an anally devastated retard who is spewing ignorant drivel about games he has never even played.

The point is you can take a run off the mill PoE wizard and play him as a front liner.

Which will play nothing alike compared to a frontliner fighter. Or a frontliner barbarian with his mobility. Or a frontliner spiritshifter druid. Or a frontliner cleric.

I don't care if you cast spells or use weapons to attack

So you don't care about class identity? OK, retard.

This isn't possible with an AD&D Mage.

It is. You can prebuff with Protection from Normal/Magic Weapons or Mantle in BG2, cast Tenser's Transformation and then proceed to auto-attack, annihilating martial class identity, because martials can't do anything else other than auto-attacking in AD&D. Oh, wait, there's stunning blow which definitely changes everything

Yes, clerics can tank, though in IE games you would almost always use Fighter as a multiclass.

You can use whatever you want, these are all viable choices. The problem here is that the fighter ends up auto-attacking just like cleric and thus the fighter's class identity is destroyed. Not so in PoE, where fighters get their own pool of combat maneuvers.

We aren't talking about P&P and Codzilla

You can easily do a Codzilla in both BG2 and IWD2. You have absolutely no clue how these games works.

Enemies in PoE pull stupid status effects out of their ass virtually every fight

This is not an argument. Provide examples of abilities and perform a comparison of ability pools, if you want to argue the absence of class identity in PoE. Oh, wait, you can't, because you never played it.

 

[Roguey]

To equal the amount of work that went into sidekicks, you can upload some portait mods, make a custom hirling and record yourself yelling "advance!" "retreat" "ooga booga fireball" to have some combat barks.

They half-assed that shit in like 5 minutes before release, it's lowest effort possible filler content.

Yeah, those are BG-style companions all right. Introductory dialogue and then barks, a handful of lines at best for the remainder of the game.

 

[MjKorz]

To equal the amount of work that went into sidekicks, you can upload some portait mods, make a custom hirling and record yourself yelling "advance!" "retreat" "ooga booga fireball" to have some combat barks.

They half-assed that shit in like 5 minutes before release, it's lowest effort possible filler content.

This is false. Deadfire sidekicks have their personalities expanded upon in DLCs: Ydwin in Beast of Winter, Konstanten in Seeker Slayer Survivor and Fassina in Forgotten Sanctum.

Spoiler

Deadfire sidekicks mog some BG "companions" in terms of characterization. Let that sink in.