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

[Sensuki]

Where did his HD600s go ?

 

[Blaine]

He has a pair of Sennheisers, too? So do I. Clearly a man of distinguished taste.

 

[Sensuki]

Yeh Senn 650s here. 580/600/650 all v. good++

 

[Jedi Exile]

Timmy

 

[Space Satan]

 

[Infinitron]

Answering questions on tumblr but not on spring.me, huh?

 

[Liston]

I really like that resting bonuses last until the next rest and not for a predeterminer time interval (like in F:NV). It gives you a reason not to rest at campfires and rewards good players. It would be even better if resting required some resource...

 

[Xeon]

I don't understand. Does that mean its permanent?

If you get bonuses when resting and it lasts until you rest again. Does that mean it gets renewed again making it semi-permanent or you don't get bonuses every time you rest?

Edit:
Added a few more words

 

[Excidium]

That means it gets lost if you rest in a campsite or renewed if you rest in a inn or your home.

 

[Xeon]

Oh, Thanks.

Missed him excluding camps.

 

[tuluse]

It also probably means different bonus depending on inn or house.

 

[Arkeus]

Yeah, we were told in the last update that building libraries/laboratories will improve bonuses when we sleep at our stronghold, so it's porbably Stronghold > Inn > Campfire.

 

[Space Satan]

I would prefer Inn=Stronghold>Campfire. There should be royal inns and wealthy hotels. Which is logical - in medieval europe almost every noble with manor or other property in a city used it as a hotel.

 

[Starym]

I would prefer Inn=Stronghold>Campfire. There should be royal inns and wealthy hotels. Which is logical - in medieval europe almost every noble with manor or other property in a city used it as a hotel.

I don't think the bonuses will come from only resting (in the in-game sense). Seems likely that you'll get a "well rested" bonus from inns and then if you use the stronghold you'll get that plus some building-specific (like the library) bonuses on top - aka you rest at your stronghold and then before you go back out your librarian/martial trainer guy show you a few tricks or teach you something that translates into the appropriate stat bonus.

 

[Arkeus]

Aahahahha, people are whining over at SA that Casters need micro-management and want them to just be left on AI because they don't want to control other chars than their 'heroes'.

Lotish posted:
When you say "high maintenance," I get the worrying idea that if I have wizards in my party I'm going to have to spend most of my time controlling them instead of my character or someone else "lower maintenance," unless I specifically spec them to have fewer active abilities. Can the AI handle running active abilities without my constant guidance so I can pay more attention to other classes if I want?

I don't particularly like playing wizards in DnD games because of their often cludgy rules and whatnot, but playing Icewind Dale I had to spend most of my fighting running the wizard, sorcerer and cleric instead of the other guys. I would like to avoid being obliged to "play" the wizard by default, regardless of my own character choice, so I'd really like it if the AI of allied NPCs can handle its own "maintenance."

rope kid posted:
I apologize, but that is the way that the game is likely to play. Part of the IE (specifically, BG and IWD) combat experience involved higher micromanagement of spellcasters and we believe it's something the majority of our backers enjoy. We want to put in automated controls for things like auto-pausing and similar high-level functions, but we don't want to transform tactical (i.e., in the moment) decision-making into strategic (i.e. pre-conditioned) routines.

That said, our lower levels of difficulty will not require as much micromanagement overall, and we have included the slow combat mode if you'd like more time to think without constant pausing/unpausing.

How do you feel about adding semi-programmable AI routines to computer controlled party members a la DA:O? I liked that you could program situational actions (Enemy casting a spell? Stun them!), things that I definitely want to have the party do but don't necessarily want to micromanage the doing of it.

Is there a sort of fallback AI for some classes? Ie; if my wizard isn't casting Fireball he won't stand around but will do...something? I'm not sure if casters have a default attack ability like using a wand or similar.

rope kid posted:
Characters can all auto-attack. Most players will probably equip wizards (specifically) with wands because wizards gain advantages with them and they're decent supplemental weapons with long range.

 

[Roguey]

My casters spent the majority of their time slingin' stones or other dangerous projecticles. My playstyle is extraordinarily lazy.

 

[tuluse]

Well I would say that one J.E. Sawyer has the solution for them. Use a lower maintenance class. Problem solved. Since all classes are balanced to be roughly equal to each other, they don't have to worry about falling behind the power curve.

 

[Roguey]

Well I would say that one J.E. Sawyer has the solution for them. Use a lower maintenance class. Problem solved. Since all classes are balanced to be roughly equal to each other, they don't have to worry about falling behind the power curve.

Josh said that trying to play this without using any casters whatsoever will result in a much harder experience.

 

[Cynic]

Good to know he approved of my ideas

The bonuses for resting at an Inn or your house are a cool touch.

 

[Arkeus]

If you're comparing it to D&D, this is a similar progression except for two differences: 1) we maintain differences between classes (given equal level) as an integer rather than as a proportion and 2) because we use a 100 point base scale instead of a 20 point base scale, we have finer control over per-level advancement.



E.g. in Pathfinder, a fighter starts with +2 Fort, +0 Ref, +0 Will. They progress like this (Fort/Ref/Will)



5th+4+1+1
10th+7+3+3
15th+9+5+5
20th+12+6+6

A rogue starts with +0 Fort, +2 Ref, +0 Will. They progress like this (Fort/Ref/Will)

5th+1+4+1
10th+3+7+3
15th+5+9+5
20th+6+12+6


It's a regular progression: they start with an advantage in one (for some classes in D&D, two), and advance at regular intervals. Of course, at high levels this falls apart because the proportional gulf between good and bad saves becomes so wide that characters have to overcompensate or inure themselves to specific effects to avoid being sucker punched. At 1st level, the difference between the good and bad saves is (effectively) 10%. At 10th level, it's 20%. At 20th level, it's 30%.



To make matters worse, typically the obvious "good" stats for a given class reinforce the better saves and neglect the worse saves. Fighters often have a high Con, which means they are likely to have an even higher total Fort than normal. They might have a decent Dex which can bolster their Reflex, but it's rare that they have a high Wis (and consequently, Will save). Because save DCs are often balanced around the "hard" targets, it means that the weakest saves of a class combined with the weakest (or least important) ability scores for that class make them really, really vulnerable. This is why Pathfinder has a special Bravery feature for fighters at higher levels -- otherwise they'd run or freeze in terror more than half the time a comparable caster chucked a Will-based fear effect their way.



In PE, fighters start with the following defenses: 25 Deflect, 15 Fortitude, 10 Reflexes, 10 Psyche. Rogues start with the following defenses: 15 Deflect, 10 Fortitude, 30 Reflexes, 5 Psyche. Every level, every character gains +3 to all defenses. At 6th level, the fighter would have 40 Deflect, 30 Fortitude, 25 Reflexes, 25 Psyche. The rogue would have 30 Deflect, 25 Fortitude, 45 Reflexes, 20 Psyche. The fighter's worst defenses are still Reflexes and Psyche, but they're only "just as" bad (by the same margin) as they were at 1st level. The same applies to the rogue's Psyche and Fortitude. And while the rogue did "catch up" to where the fighter's Deflection was, the fighter maintains the same 10 point advantage over the rogue that he or she did at 1st level.



Of course, Attributes, gear, Talents, Abilities, etc. also can all feed into your defenses, but those are much easier to switch around than your class and level. I.e., if you find yourself particularly vulnerable to a particular type of attack (meaning, what defense it targets), the cause is likely easier to remedy in PE than it would be in D&D (because class is such a large component of that value as levels rise).

 

[Infinitron]

The problem with that is that at high levels the differences between the classes become increasingly diminished. 100 Fortitude vs 95 Fortitude.

What they could do is tune enemies and encounters such that those differences remain relevant even at high levels. So the 100 Fortitude score would still give tangible advantages over the 95 Fortitude score. That might be hard to do, though.

 

[Arkeus]

The problem with that is that at high levels the differences between the classes become increasingly diminished. 100 Fortitude vs 95 Fortitude.

As long as the spell/attack fortitude for a DC of 93-102, well... it's not increasingly diminished at all.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

The problem with that is that at high levels the differences between the classes become increasingly diminished. 100 Fortitude vs 95 Fortitude.

What they could do is tune enemies and encounters such that those differences remain relevant even at high levels. So the 100 Fortitude score would still give tangible advantages over the 95 Fortitude score. That might be hard to do, though.

I will second that.
It could have something like Fighter gets +x Fortitude at every y level (rogue reflex) as a bonus, so that one of the saves is dominant for them and doesn't become homogenous at higher levels.

 

[Sensuki]

Jesus fuck Sawyer posted a lot today.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64...nfinity-engine-games/?view=findpost&p=1368379

Our ranged weapons do good damage, but can't compete blow-for-blow with two-handed melee weapons. The exceptions to this are firearms, but they are relatively inaccurate and slow to reload.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64...nfinity-engine-games/?view=findpost&p=1368392

No cover/melee engagement penalties like 3E/3.5/Pathfinder. Even in a turn-based tabletop game those penalties get really odious (cover + in melee = effectively +8 AC) and hard to avoid, so most ranged characters have to take Precise Shot (or get it as part of their class). I'd rather mitigate the per-shot damage done by ranged weapons and not use cover/melee engagement rules.

In the end, the result is effectively the same: less damage done over a given period of time. With unmodified accuracy and lower overall damage, it's more normalized/less spiky.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64297-character-rollaholic-mea-culpa/?view=findpost&p=1368398

Gaining proficiency or specializing in categories of weapons has existed (at least as an option) in several editions of A/D&D, including Combat & Tactics (2nd Ed.), 4th Ed., Pathfinder, and 3.5 UE's Weapon Groups.

Structuring Attributes so there aren't dump stats promotes more role-playing options because non-viable builds should be much less common. Speaking as someone who has played a lot of gimmick builds and characters with sub-par ability arrays for a given class, while it can be very enjoyable to role-play a high-Cha fighter in 3.5/Pathfinder, those characters are typically (barring the use of a lot of special/house rules) pretty ineffective at doing the job their class is supposed to do. Choosing to play certain character concepts becomes an implicit difficulty slider and I don't think it's in the players' interest to link those two things.

We have combat style Talents and they should allow you to stick with a fighting style even if an enemy's specific armor strengths/weaknesses promote switching to a different damage type. You also typically have another option: switching a character's targets. We try to structure fights so you have a variety of enemies to contend with.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64...nfinity-engine-games/?view=findpost&p=1368410

Every single ranged attack won't do damage. They can graze or miss just like standard melee attacks.

And if you want a shotgun blast, that's what blunderbusses are for.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64...nfinity-engine-games/?view=findpost&p=1368413

Ballistics can be weird at times. Strangely enough, arrows can have a difficult time penetrating many-layered (like, 20) linen jacks. It's not always simply a matter of incoming force and material strength.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64297-character-rollaholic-mea-culpa/?view=findpost&p=1368420

Overall, weapon/damage type switching should be occasional, not frequent. We currently have seven damage/resist types. In the vast majority of cases, on any given creature or type of armor, most damage types have the same DT as the base DT. One, two, or possibly three damage types will have a higher or lower DT. Those differences will also be consistent, so if you see someone in mail -- whether it's run-of-the-mill or some awesome magical variant -- their relative DT is always going to be worse for Crush than the base. If you see someone in plate, their relative DT for Shock is always going to be worse than the base. If there are two size variants of a monster, its relative damage type strengths/weaknesses will typically be maintained between the variants.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64350-update-63-stronghold/?view=findpost&p=1368423

It's pretty straightforward: sale prices are pegged with the assumption that you will sell everything you find. Sale prices are almost universally much, much lower than buy prices in RPGs and those rates are arbitrated around balancing the economy (at least up to the endgame).

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64350-update-63-stronghold/?view=findpost&p=1368425

Stronghold tax income is more for balancing maintenance costs (i.e., paying hirelings and repairing damaged upgrades) than a major source of income. Your major source of income will almost certainly be finding money and loot in the world.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64297-character-rollaholic-mea-culpa/?view=findpost&p=1368426

Will there be mono-like encounters? Like, a room full of monsters that are immune/highly-resistant to fire? Or will those not be present at the game at all?

I agree that most encounters should be varied so as not to make certain playstyles gimped, but if there's a single instance or two in the game where players who rely on certain strategies/builds need to do something radically different in a single room to move past it... that could be interesting. Though, maybe it's not worth it?

My flimsy question is: How true are you sticking to that design philosophy? Will it be permitted to have encounters ever designed that way?

We may have encounters like that. I think it's good to mix up encounters so they're not constantly balanced around maximal uses of resources or overly formulaic. Sometimes it's nice to just roll a bunch of scrubs in an otherwise difficult dungeon. Sometimes it's nice to see the balance of enemy types/resistances radically shifted. As long as it doesn't present an insurmountable roadblock, it becomes an opportunity to think/use your characters a little differently.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64350-update-63-stronghold/?view=findpost&p=1368432

Your player house is located within the boundaries of the stronghold, but it is its own building with its own upgrades/benefits.

I think physically splitting the house and the stronghold increases the likelihood that the player will choose to not visit one or the other (most likely, the house) over the course of the game.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64297-character-rollaholic-mea-culpa/?view=findpost&p=1368464

No, we really don't want to do that at all. I think it is better to occasionally say, "Of the ten ways you could attack this guy, these three are not good" than to say, "This is the one way out of ten that you can viably attack this guy." The former encourages you to examine other possibilities, but you can arrive at a number of solutions, some of which work better for your particular character/party. The latter can leave you in a situation where you're just SOL (or at a severe disadvantage).

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64350-update-63-stronghold/?view=findpost&p=1368466

I didn't design the stronghold resources/systems in any of the previous games I've worked on. If a system gives out a resource periodically, it should either expire after a number of periods have elapsed or the periods should stop elapsing.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61...ive-texture-problems/?view=findpost&p=1368467

Our slightly-above-average dungeon levels contain ~1 gig of render data, uncompressed.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64297-character-rollaholic-mea-culpa/?view=findpost&p=1368512

In D&D, +3 is still +3 even when other bonuses from other sources enter the mix that makes up the aggregate. Even if it comprises a smaller proportion of the total, it's still valuable. All other things being equal, a class' starting defense bonuses will always shift their overall balance. A 5th level barbarian may find a number of ways (items, spells, etc.) to get his or her Deflection on par with a 5th level fighter's, but given access to the same methods, the fighter would still maintain his or her class advantage.

In PE, for any standard attack, every 5 points of defense translates to a 5% shift to miss, graze, hit, and crit (sometimes negating the possibility entirely). In D&D terms, a 15 point defense advantage is similar to +3/-3. Shifting the odds always helps.

 

[Sensuki]

and on SA