Interview Josh Sawyer Interview Roundup: On grognards, illiterates, and murdering dudes

[Somberlain]

"So Sawyer says it will "not be as hard as IWD2 but should be in the IWD/BG2 range."

Except IWD2 is easier than both of those other games. LMFAO

What are you talking about? Vanilla IWD is much easier than IWD2, and even BG2.

When were any IE games ever legitimately difficult past the initial "killed by a gibberling in one hit" phase?

BG2 and IWD2 can be really difficult if you don't really understand the rules or have any metagame knowledge, and just try to brute force everything with basic buffs, attacking and fireballs etc. I managed to do that when I was a kid, but I played on very easy and still remember some fights being really hard.

 

[Johannes]

The only bit I really take issue with, is Sawyer citing the example of grogs (whatever the fuck that means in this context) telling him how much fun feature "X" is and then his unequivocal statement that, "No, no it isn't."

Oh my bad. Thank god he's here to tell me I'm doing fun wrong. I'll get right on to fixing that.

Well, you can test that pretty simply. Try to imagine a game that's exactly like Baldur's Gate 2 but doesn't have the issues he mentions. For example, a Baldur's Gate 2 where thieves and fighters have some innate abilities that allow them to participate more actively in dismantling enemy mage defenses in so-called "mage duels".

If that seems less fun to you, then you're right and he's being an arrogant git. If it's equally or more fun, then he's right and the things you thought were important aren't really that important.

It is less fun if absolutely everyone has innate abilities. That's less diverse than some classes having more than others.

If you want a fighter that has innate abilities, pick a paladin or ranger or a multiclass. Or a kit that has some, for a subtler choice. But if you wanted an easy to use, straight up warrior, you could do that too and it wouldn't be crap. Not that they still couldn't, and shouldn't on a harder difficulty, constantly use some abilities - items like potions, summon items, etc., arrows with special effects, swap weapons that have very tangible differences. They were perfectly fun and a good contrast to the spellcasters.

It potentially feels silly if every class is a caster class in a sense, throwing out spells (or spell-like abilities) non-stop. Even if the spells cast by class A are categorically different from ones cast by B - with everyone being a specialist of their own niche. In D&D, mages and clerics could cast a wide variety of different spells to suit the situation and were not relegated to a specific specialised combat role, but more generalists. While warriors and thieves were more specialised in their own things.

 

[Arkeus]

In D&D, mages and clerics could cast a wide variety of different spells to suit the situation and were not relegated to a specific specialised combat role, but more generalists. While warriors and thieves were more specialised in their own things.

Yeah, they specialized in being an NPC. That's a true and proud tradition, and we should totally respect that. Just make sure that the players know this is a NPC, and so they can't be a warrior :p

 

[deuxhero]

How so? If magic is a real, working thing with tangible effects EVERYONE should be using some form of magic. It's like saying it feels silly that every job in the real world uses technology.

(PoE thankfully DOES do this to some degree in the fluff though: Everyone has supernatural prowess thanks to doing shit with souls)

 

[Johannes]

In D&D, mages and clerics could cast a wide variety of different spells to suit the situation and were not relegated to a specific specialised combat role, but more generalists. While warriors and thieves were more specialised in their own things.

Yeah, they specialized in being an NPC. That's a true and proud tradition, and we should totally respect that. Just make sure that the players know this is a NPC, and so they can't be a warrior :p

There's a bigger variety of interesting things for a warrior to do in an IE game than your average RPG offers for any class.

 

[tuluse]

There's a bigger variety of interesting things for a warrior to do in an IE game than your average RPG offers for any class.

What things can a warrior do that no other class can do?

 

[deuxhero]

tuluseDouble back on their path twice, wasting time, because they can't find their way around a tiny obstacle. Duh.

 

[Johannes]

There's a bigger variety of interesting things for a warrior to do in an IE game than your average RPG offers for any class.

What things can a warrior do that no other class can do?

When discounting BG2 kit warriors, the answer could be nothing. But that's the point. They are specialised in the straight up fighting and there's nothing wrong with that. You can put a wizard in melee, yes, but do you really want to?

They also open up the item use a lot more - you wouldn't want to use a generic item in stead of casting a wizard's spell, usually, but a warrior can do that in tandem with his fightan.

 

[Zeriel]

Fighters in D&D were also balanced around limited resting. So CRPGs that allow infinite resting were never a good way to judge that design.

 

[Infinitron]

It is less fun if absolutely everyone has innate abilities. That's less diverse than some classes having more than others.

If you want a fighter that has innate abilities, pick a paladin or ranger or a multiclass. Or a kit that has some, for a subtler choice. But if you wanted an easy to use, straight up warrior, you could do that too and it wouldn't be crap. Not that they still couldn't, and shouldn't on a harder difficulty, constantly use some abilities - items like potions, summon items, etc., arrows with special effects, swap weapons that have very tangible differences. They were perfectly fun and a good contrast to the spellcasters.

It potentially feels silly if every class is a caster class in a sense, throwing out spells (or spell-like abilities) non-stop. Even if the spells cast by class A are categorically different from ones cast by B - with everyone being a specialist of their own niche. In D&D, mages and clerics could cast a wide variety of different spells to suit the situation and were not relegated to a specific specialised combat role, but more generalists. While warriors and thieves were more specialised in their own things.

3rd Edition D&D Fighters already had innate abilities and few people complained. Most thought that it was better. PoE is merely continuing that evolution - the only question is what those innate abilities should do, not whether they should exist at all.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

There's a bigger variety of interesting things for a warrior to do in an IE game than your average RPG offers for any class.

Can't see how, in IE games warriors were mostly auto attacking, the variety came from using different equipment/items but that's about it. There has to be a sweetspot in-between giving warriors more options/abilities in combat and them feeling like casters (and/or having cooldown based MMO abilities). I don't mind extra micromanagement (and don't consider RTWP to be a clusterfuck when it comes to IE games), just give me more options when I'm playing a fighter.

Personally, I like what they've shown so far of fighter abilities in PoE.

 

[set]

It's not about passive vs active character building when it comes to thieves/warriors - it comes to their design.

I do not want my passive warrior's strength being replaced with active abilities. This just means I have extra pointless micromanaging to do - having my warriors "shield bash" or "cleave" every 3 turns in order to be effective is not interesting or engaging. This kind of "wake up you're asleep press the button again" WoW-like combat design is terrible.

Warriors tank, rogues steal and crit; these are the general tropes of rogues and warriors. If all active abilities for these classes are simply "stun the thing you're tanking" or "crit the thing you're hitting" then you've replaced passive effects of a typical DND warrior with an active skill bar button that must be pressed periodically to win. It's not deep or strategic.

If we want warriors/rogues to be more demanding and strategic we should give them spells/skills that are as powerful as a mage's ability to shift the battle. Ie, a warrior that has a line-based charge that knocks enemies away from the center of the destination point - something like this would disrupt their formation (but would also push some enemies away from himself and closer to those he's trying to protect). A rogue should get something like the ability to bind an enemy's hands or feet for a brief period (at the cost of being unable to attack; I don't know maybe he's got batman cables or something, it's kind of roguey). Rogues/warriors need in-battle strategic tools, not flashy buttons that must be pressed.

And no, I'm not enthusiastic about those stupid fucking "psuedo strategic aura abilities" that Sawyer's talked about. Dragon Age had that stupid shit - it's not interesting or engaging when I'm given the choice to pick one of ten persistent passive skills that do stuff like "Guard Stance: -10% damage +10% block chance while active. Reserves 25% of your stamina.". These skills are never impactful-feeling and you always use the same one you pick at the start of the game. It makes even less sense when the passive tree forces you to buy these boring, awful skills in order to buy MORE of these persistent-self-buff-skils that you'll never use just so you can maybe buy some half-way-decent passive skill at the end game. It also doesn't make any sense that these skills should reserve stamina, because you're literally just making the game more passive by removing the player's ability to use active skills.

 

[hiver]

There's a bigger variety of interesting things for a warrior to do in an IE game than your average RPG offers for any class.

What things can a warrior do that no other class can do?

Why would other classes be able to do the things the warriors can do - is the correct question.

Answer - because the RPGs went down the combat focus drain.

 

[Arkeus]

Why would other classes be able to do the things the warriors can do - is the correct question.

Answer - because the RPGs went down the combat focus drain.

No, the answer is 'magic'.

When it comes down to it, you have a class that's more or less a baseline human, and classes that use magic. Unless the warrior uses some kind of magic to make himself a better warrior- magic that is available only to him- then the warrior is always going to be a worse warrior than any magic class.

 

[Infinitron]

These skills are never impactful-feeling and you always use the same one you pick at the start of the game.

Dragon Age

I'm sure Dragon Age's full health regeneration after every battle and endless piles of consumables had nothing to do with its abilities feeling non-impactful. No, it must be the very concept of abilities that is flawed.

In any case, in PoE most warrior abilities are passive or modal. The active ones have no cooldowns. There is no stamina reservation. Again, the proper comparison is Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, not Dragon Age.

 

[hiver]

Why would other classes be able to do the things the warriors can do - is the correct question.

Answer - because the RPGs went down the combat focus drain.

No, the answer is 'magic'.

When it comes down to it, you have a class that's more or less a baseline human, and classes that use magic. Unless the warrior uses some kind of magic to make himself a better warrior- magic that is available only to him- then the warrior is always going to be a worse warrior than any magic class.

Does making declaratory absolutistic statements before you even thought about what you are talking about actually make sense?

Magic is nothing more then another type of combat in all such games. Its nothing more then damage dealing (with some buffs, debuffs thrown in as afterthoughts, at best)

That lump of grey matter in your skull is not there only to give you satisfaction and pleasant secretions of hormones. Try using its other features sometimes.

 

[Johannes]

Unless the warrior uses some kind of magic to make himself a better warrior- magic that is available only to him- then the warrior is always going to be a worse warrior than any magic class.

False. See the IE games.

 

[Arkeus]

Unless the warrior uses some kind of magic to make himself a better warrior- magic that is available only to him- then the warrior is always going to be a worse warrior than any magic class.

False. See the IE games.

Yes, see the IE games. There are reasons the warriors are NPCs- as warriors they are pretty much outdone by every other classes.

Why would other classes be able to do the things the warriors can do - is the correct question.

Answer - because the RPGs went down the combat focus drain.

No, the answer is 'magic'.

When it comes down to it, you have a class that's more or less a baseline human, and classes that use magic. Unless the warrior uses some kind of magic to make himself a better warrior- magic that is available only to him- then the warrior is always going to be a worse warrior than any magic class.

Does making declaratory absolutistic statements before you even thought about what you are talking about actually make sense?

Magic is nothing more then another type of combat in all such games. Its nothing more then damage dealing (with some buffs, debuffs thrown in as afterthoughts, at best)

That lump of grey matter in your skull is not there only to give you satisfaction and pleasant secretions of hormones. Try using its other features sometimes.

... i am going to assume you are just drunk and haven't noticed what you are saying.

 

[hiver]

jesus fucking christ...

 

[Monty]

Yes, see the IE games. There are reasons the warriors are NPCs- as warriors they are pretty much outdone by every other classes

??? BG had NPCs of every class. And you could make a warrior PC. Icewind Dale has total party creation. This makes no sense.

 

[Decado]

It's not about passive vs active character building when it comes to thieves/warriors - it comes to their design.

I do not want my passive warrior's strength being replaced with active abilities. This just means I have extra pointless micromanaging to do - having my warriors "shield bash" or "cleave" every 3 turns in order to be effective is not interesting or engaging. This kind of "wake up you're asleep press the button again" WoW-like combat design is terrible.

Warriors tank, rogues steal and crit; these are the general tropes of rogues and warriors. If all active abilities for these classes are simply "stun the thing you're tanking" or "crit the thing you're hitting" then you've replaced passive effects of a typical DND warrior with an active skill bar button that must be pressed periodically to win. It's not deep or strategic.

If we want warriors/rogues to be more demanding and strategic we should give them spells/skills that are as powerful as a mage's ability to shift the battle. Ie, a warrior that has a line-based charge that knocks enemies away from the center of the destination point - something like this would disrupt their formation (but would also push some enemies away from himself and closer to those he's trying to protect). A rogue should get something like the ability to bind an enemy's hands or feet for a brief period (at the cost of being unable to attack; I don't know maybe he's got batman cables or something, it's kind of roguey). Rogues/warriors need in-battle strategic tools, not flashy buttons that must be pressed.

And no, I'm not enthusiastic about those stupid fucking "psuedo strategic aura abilities" that Sawyer's talked about. Dragon Age had that stupid shit - it's not interesting or engaging when I'm given the choice to pick one of ten persistent passive skills that do stuff like "Guard Stance: -10% damage +10% block chance while active. Reserves 25% of your stamina.". These skills are never impactful-feeling and you always use the same one you pick at the start of the game. It makes even less sense when the passive tree forces you to buy these boring, awful skills in order to buy MORE of these persistent-self-buff-skils that you'll never use just so you can maybe buy some half-way-decent passive skill at the end game. It also doesn't make any sense that these skills should reserve stamina, because you're literally just making the game more passive by removing the player's ability to use active skills.

I'm not going to lie: I liked having to manage active abilities for fighters/rogues in DA:O. I don't think I would like it all the time, and for every RPG I play from now until I die, but I liked it in DA:O.

But it is not a hard and fast rule for that game, either. Sword and board tanks in DA:O are basically fire and forget. Use taunt, then let them stand there and get the shit beat out of them. Same with archers, since most of the arrow abilities are shit and you were better off spamming crits instead of fucking around with things like Arrow of Slaying.

ETA: But when it came to things like 2H warriors and Assassins, I sincerely enjoyed playing a more "active" role in dictating how they engaged enemies. If you look at BGII (just as an example) the only difference between Keldorn, Anomen, or Minsc is they weapons they are using. In all three cases you just point them at a target and forget about them. There is no real interaction unless you are using a heal. Which is also nice in its own way.

I'm hoping PoE falls somewhere in the middle of these two games as far as combat ability engagement goes.

 

[Copper]

I'm pretty sure I played a rogue in BG, never really felt as though I was missing out on anything except interesting encounters that were designed with rogues in mind (picking off enemies one by one to get a tactical advantage for the party, disabling traps in combat to swing battle, etc. Maybe using stealth to nuke NPC parties with magic effect arrows?) Anyway, while you can argue the system was bad, that knife also cuts both ways, and you can argue the designers failed to deliver on the content front, much as many published adventure supplements have poor encounter design. Just because you can't scope out every possible thing a clever player can do with a sword & lots of muscles doesn't mean you can't give them moments to shine through better encounter design.

 

[Johannes]

If you look at BGII (just as an example) the only difference between Keldorn, Anomen, or Minsc is they weapons they are using. In all three cases you just point them at a target and forget about them. There is no real interaction unless you are using a heal. Which is also nice in its own way.

Huh, Inquisitor, dual Warrior/Cleric, and Ranger are all pretty distinct and all of them have a decent amount of extra abilities to use.

 

[Decado]

If you look at BGII (just as an example) the only difference between Keldorn, Anomen, or Minsc is they weapons they are using. In all three cases you just point them at a target and forget about them. There is no real interaction unless you are using a heal. Which is also nice in its own way.

Huh, Inquisitor, dual Warrior/Cleric, and Ranger are all pretty distinct and all of them have a decent amount of extra abilities to use.

Yeah but you don't need them, except for Keldorn's OP'd Dispel Magic. I've played the the whole game without ever using a single special ability of Minsc. Or Anomen, for that matter, unless it was buffing before a fight. When it comes to hitting enemies, they just wade and start delivering.

 

[Johannes]

If you look at BGII (just as an example) the only difference between Keldorn, Anomen, or Minsc is they weapons they are using. In all three cases you just point them at a target and forget about them. There is no real interaction unless you are using a heal. Which is also nice in its own way.

Huh, Inquisitor, dual Warrior/Cleric, and Ranger are all pretty distinct and all of them have a decent amount of extra abilities to use.

Yeah but you don't need them, except for Keldorn's OP'd Dispel Magic. I've played the the whole game without ever using a single special ability of Minsc. Or Anomen, for that matter, unless it was buffing before a fight. When it comes to hitting enemies, they just wade and start delivering.

If you look at BGII (just as an example) the only difference between Keldorn, Anomen, or Minsc is they weapons they are using. In all three cases you just point them at a target and forget about them. There is no real interaction unless you are using a heal. Which is also nice in its own way.

Huh, Inquisitor, dual Warrior/Cleric, and Ranger are all pretty distinct and all of them have a decent amount of extra abilities to use.

Yeah but you don't need them, except for Keldorn's OP'd Dispel Magic. I've played the the whole game without ever using a single special ability of Minsc. Or Anomen, for that matter, unless it was buffing before a fight. When it comes to hitting enemies, they just wade and start delivering.

Sure, you don't necessarily need any spells or characters besides Keldorn and his Dispel to complete the vanilla game if you're so inclined, it's not a hard game. If you're not gonna use the abilities those characters get, you should replaced them with a Fighter who's better at that hands-off approach.