Sadly, i believe you are right, which is why i understand the name of this thread. Because he has gone full retard and made everything about the combat, so a combat focused character and a lazy drunk that served in the military and just wants to sleep are just as capable a warrior. Warrior now not being a class, but simply a combat role.
That's not true. The only thing is that the player can't choose to be a lazy drunk. I'm pretty sure there will still be lazy drunks you can easily kill.
Prety much this. In PE adventurers are killing machines either way. The drunk in your example isn't a choice for PC. When you choose class you simply choose how your character fights, not if he is able to.
If that's his design philosophy, then PE may well become a pretty bland game. Balance character builds around combat only and you're basically back to Diablo school of design, as opposed to making some builds/classes underpowered in combat, but able to make up the difference in usefulness to the party outside of combat, such as dialogue skills, lock-picking, identifying traps, secret doors ad passages, utility stuff, etc.
I kinda agree with this, I enjoy combat but I really love the outside of combat activities.Mantic said:
If they separate point pools between combat and non-combat, it will be shit by definition.
Because it's how The Hobbit and LotR worked, and no one wants things to be different from how JRR did it.
Ah yes, the good old Gandalf being so heavily specced into Greatsword-wielding that he couldn't make any social or lore or trap rolls.
Who said anything about FO? It's because challenge in an RPG shouldn't be tuned completely around combat, splitting point pools between combat and utility creates an arbitrary division that separates the two parts of the game instead of making them interdependent, as I said if having a character that can lockpick/charm NPC/pickpocket/disarm & see traps means them suffering in combat stats and abilities, it bridges the gap between the two "games", ie playing with a character/party that is monstrous in combat but bad outside it, meaning they won't be able to open that one room with some sweet magical gear in it, or using dialogue skills to get out of that one particularly nasty encounter. Instead you've just got characters that can be as good out of combat as in combat, with MMO-style "safe" and "hostile" portions of the game.
Gandy also didn't wear Heavy Armor and would of been a lvl 1 Wizard in D&D anyway, did you ever see him casting magic missile or anything beyond using magic as a light source?
Yeah man, that's totally different from IE games. Oh, wait. Classes still had roles.
I really just meant differing combat ability, not a dichomoty between combat and non-combat. Which Fallout didn't have either, you could be a better combatant than any NPC in the game and be the best speech giver.
I think someone quoted Josh a few weeks ago saying that you can make a strength based Mage if you want to and it will still be viable or something so you might be able to build you class however you want if you stick to normal difficulty I think. Thanks about Gantz.Lhynn said:
They didnt have just the one role to role them all.
