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

[Roguey]

Didn't Josh talk about being able to choose more or less active abilities to create high/low maintenance characters? Not having a choice in abilities sounds pretty weak.

Yes, but I don't think that's a choice between these special per-level class abilities. Rather it would be through selection of feats, perks, or whatever they're called in this game. It's possible that they are one and the same, though.

I seem to remember that you could either go "passive enhancement" route or "active abilities" route, so it seems to me that you can choose the abilities.

Yes, but again, that specialization might manifest itself through the selection of feats on level-up, with these per-level class abilities being a separate, fixed thing. Or maybe they're one and the same, I don't know. Roguey?

Each time you level up, you get a class-specific ability. Every three levels you get a class-specific or class-neutral talent, which is the equivalent of a feat.

All classes have class abilities. After first level, wizards' class abilities are access to spells, period. Fighters (and other melee-oriented classes) have access to their own class abilities. Whether they are literally magical in nature or not, they will in many cases be more powerful than a comparable spell gained at the same level. The ultimate advantage of wizards is flexibility. They can potentially learn all spells available to wizards and at any given time are only limited by what's in their current grimoire.
...
The advancement mechanics are not like 4E in that all classes do not have the same split of active/passive abilities. E.g. wizards tend to have almost entirely active-use abilities and fighters have a mix of passive, modal, and active abilities.

Presumably they would have stat and level prerequisites, like D&D

Josh isn't a fan of stat prerequisites.

 

[Infinitron]

Roguey What I'm assuming is that the class-specific abilities are fixed, like the AD&D Paladin gaining the ability to cast Cleric spells at a certain level. You don't select that, you always get it.

The feats/talents, on the other hand, you'd select out of a pool.

 

[Roguey]

Roguey What I'm assuming is that the class-specific abilities are fixed, like the AD&D Paladin gaining the ability to cast Cleric spells at a certain level. You don't select that, you always get it.

The feats/talents, on the other hand, you'd select out of a pool.

That's not the case at the moment, you can choose which abilities you want. An example he used is how you can have a very active-ability heavy fighter or go with passive/modals for a more traditional fighter.

 

[AN4RCHID]

Eh. You could be right Infinitron. To be honest, I would prefer to pick up an ability every other level and actually have some say in how the class develops.

 

[Infinitron]

Josh isn't a fan of stat prerequisites.

Source?

That's not the case at the moment, you can choose which abilities you want. An example he used is how you can have a very active-ability heavy fighter or go with passive/modals for a more traditional fighter.

Again, it isn't clear to me whether that specialization is manifested via selection of per-level class abilities or via selection of talents. Maybe I should ask him. Unless you have a source?

 

[DraQ]

Being able to balance between active abilities and passive abilities for varying degrees of micromanagement is an interesting way of trying to fix RTWP. Not really the right way IMO, but it might just work.

If a game allows for resurrection, why is save-or-die so bad? The goal isn't to win every fight and no one ever dies, is it?

Also this. If the game is party based and doesn't have game-over inducing protagonist, then party's resistance to TPK is going to be much higher than individual character's saves (due to statistics), making even otherwise "bad" single step instakills workable mechanics.

And lastly, you can also have deterministic saves - as in simply 'thresholds'.

 

[AN4RCHID]

If a game allows for resurrection, why is save-or-die so bad? The goal isn't to win every fight and no one ever dies, is it?

Also this. If the game is party based and doesn't have game-over inducing protagonist, then party's resistance to TPK is going to be much higher than individual character's saves (due to statistics), making even otherwise "bad" single step instakills workable mechanics..

Valid point, but PE does have permadeath for companions and a "main" protagonist.

 

[DraQ]

If a game allows for resurrection, why is save-or-die so bad? The goal isn't to win every fight and no one ever dies, is it?

Also this. If the game is party based and doesn't have game-over inducing protagonist, then party's resistance to TPK is going to be much higher than individual character's saves (due to statistics), making even otherwise "bad" single step instakills workable mechanics..

Valid point, but PE does have permadeath for companions and a "main" protagonist.

Yeah, it obviously doesn't work without resurrection, and I'm generally happy to have no resurrection in game. Still, it doesn't exactly rule out other sorts of instakills discussed before that are avoidable through non-random mechanics.

 

[Roguey]

Josh isn't a fan of stat prerequisites.

Source?

YCS, he emptyquoted a poster who said "which brings me to my second point: Feat Qualifications are for the lose."

It's in-line with his hatred for prestige classes. Too much up-front planning.

That's not the case at the moment, you can choose which abilities you want. An example he used is how you can have a very active-ability heavy fighter or go with passive/modals for a more traditional fighter.

Again, it isn't clear to me whether that specialization is manifested via selection of per-level class abilities or via selection of talents. Maybe I should ask him. Unless you have a source?[/quote]
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/390987

When it comes to the balance of active/modal and passive options, the classes generally reflect their D&D counterparts, with spellcasters having more active use abilities and weapon-based classes being oriented toward more passive or modal abilities. Even so, it will be possible to push a spellcaster toward more passive talents and to optionally buy more active/modal abilities for traditionally low-maintenance characters.

 

[AN4RCHID]

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/390987

When it comes to the balance of active/modal and passive options, the classes generally reflect their D&D counterparts, with spellcasters having more active use abilities and weapon-based classes being oriented toward more passive or modal abilities. Even so, it will be possible to push a spellcaster toward more passive talents and to optionally buy more active/modal abilities for traditionally low-maintenance characters.

He seems to be using 'talent' and 'ability' interchangeably there...

edit: this clears things up a little bit:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63...to-our-elfhomes-but-first/page-9#entry1293167

 

[Infinitron]

YCS, he emptyquoted a poster who said "which brings me to my second point: Feat Qualifications are for the lose."

It's in-line with his hatred for prestige classes. Too much up-front planning.

Well then, I assume he has another way of preventing players from being overwhelmed with too many choices. Because prereqs have the side effect of filtering out choices which are inappropriate to the player's character concept.

When it comes to the balance of active/modal and passive options, the classes generally reflect their D&D counterparts, with spellcasters having more active use abilities and weapon-based classes being oriented toward more passive or modal abilities. Even so, it will be possible to push a spellcaster toward more passive talents and to optionally buy more active/modal abilities for traditionally low-maintenance characters.

That doesn't really answer my question. Anyway, I've asked Josh. Hopefully he replies.

 

[Roguey]

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/390987

When it comes to the balance of active/modal and passive options, the classes generally reflect their D&D counterparts, with spellcasters having more active use abilities and weapon-based classes being oriented toward more passive or modal abilities. Even so, it will be possible to push a spellcaster toward more passive talents and to optionally buy more active/modal abilities for traditionally low-maintenance characters.

He seems to be using 'talent' and 'ability' interchangeably there...

As mentioned before, wizards don't get any abilities that aren't spells. They can choose between active talents (such as grimoire slam) or more passive kinds. Weapon-based classes can choose among active, passive, and modal abilities.

 

[AN4RCHID]

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/390987

When it comes to the balance of active/modal and passive options, the classes generally reflect their D&D counterparts, with spellcasters having more active use abilities and weapon-based classes being oriented toward more passive or modal abilities. Even so, it will be possible to push a spellcaster toward more passive talents and to optionally buy more active/modal abilities for traditionally low-maintenance characters.

He seems to be using 'talent' and 'ability' interchangeably there...

As mentioned before, wizards don't get any abilities that aren't spells. They can choose between active talents (such as grimoire slam) or more passive kinds. Weapon-based classes can choose among active, passive, and modal abilities.

No, you're mixing up talents and abilities too. See edit of my previous post.

 

[Sensuki]

As mentioned before, wizards don't get any abilities that aren't spells. They can choose between active talents (such as grimoire slam) or more passive kinds. Weapon-based classes can choose among active, passive, and modal abilities.

Yeah they do. Blast is a passive ability and Familiar isn't a spell either.

 

[EventHorizon]

I just hope the combat and party mechanics are similar to DA2. Bioware really nailed it.

 

[Infinitron]

Too obvious bro

 

[Rake]

 

[deuxhero]

Did we ever get a firmer statement on multi-classing? All google gives is "maybe".

 

[tuluse]

There is no multi classing. Instead each class is customizable to do different things.

 

[Infinitron]

Did we ever get a firmer statement on multi-classing? All google gives is "maybe".

There probably won't be multiclassing, but maybe I'll ask Josh later.

 

[tuluse]

Man, I was sure I read Sawyer say they're not going to do multi-classing, but the only update I can find that addresses it is Tim Cain saying they haven't ruled it out yet.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/318515?page=2

 

[Sensuki]

No Multiclassing - not necessary apparently

 

[Delterius]

Did we ever get a firmer statement on multi-classing? All google gives is "maybe".

I agree that there probably won't be multiclassing, since it sounds redundant given the planned character building system.

 

[Roguey]

As mentioned before, wizards don't get any abilities that aren't spells. They can choose between active talents (such as grimoire slam) or more passive kinds. Weapon-based classes can choose among active, passive, and modal abilities.

Yeah they do. Blast is a passive ability and Familiar isn't a spell either.

So I forgot the "after first level" modifier.

 

[Sensuki]

Well if classes gain a new ability every level, Wizards will get passives and stuff, because they definitely won't be getting access to spell levels THAT quickly. Probably some Arcane Veil stuff and whatnot.