|
Otto Skorzeny posted:It seems like Rogues and Rangers would complement each other pretty well. For instance:
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
rope kid posted:We're addressing some of this already. From the character sheet, you can directly access an in-game summary of the rules (this appeared in the IE games as an "Information" button). You will learn information about enemies as you fight them. I don't just mean that in the obvious sense, but almost all creatures will have a cyclopedia entry. The more of these creatures you fight, the more information gets filled in about them. Once you know the standard defenses of a creature, those default values appear on their tooltips (in grey) until you attack them and learn the actual value. Will the UI support multiple-windows? Like inventory and character sheet side by side to see the effects of equipping a given piece of equipment ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Furism posted:Will the UI support multiple-windows? Like inventory and character sheet side by side to see the effects of equipping a given piece of equipment ? More important still - can I resize these windows?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Wow the Obsidian forums are freaking out about the update. And tons of them, despite claiming to be grognards, are quite ignorant of the history of the Ranger class in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Is that whole thread "gently caress I'm not playing a ranger if they have to use bows!" or am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Hey rope kid, this might be counterintuitive to the design of the game, but has there been any play testing done with very small parties or even single character play throughs? I've always liked the idea of playing as one lone do-it-all character, that sometimes might have a sidekick or two around but never more than that. Will we be able to use difficulty settings to help balance that kind of playing, so like setting the game to Easy and playing with just one character would feel just about as difficult as playing with a full party on hard or expert? And by extension, are some classes better suited for soloing than others? GreatGreen fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jan 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Is that whole thread "gently caress I'm not playing a ranger if they have to use bows!" or am I missing something? Pretty much. Someone also complained that Rogues were "DPS tanks" as well, apparently not noticing that they have good DAM and not-so-good DPS and their defenses are anything but tank-like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Is that whole thread "gently caress I'm not playing a ranger if they have to use bows!" or am I missing something? It's like they don't understand that a melee ranger would just be a rogue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:It's like they don't understand that a melee ranger would just be a rogue. Possibly most don't, but I'd dig playing a melee ranger that doubles down on his preys with the animal companion. Right now, I guess it's technically possible but not really optimal in any way. That said, expecting every single character concept to be supported by a Kickstarter-funded game when, well, not even big-budget titles manage to do that would be a bit silly, and I'm probably going to play a Vailian Cipher anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:It's like they don't understand that a melee ranger would just be a rogue. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think a lot of people's main character is probably going to be a rogue or cipher. Whether you want to or not, the obvious stars of the party are the ones who dish out the damage rather than the ones putting off critical but low immediate-impact effects or the ones who hold four enemies in place at once. The others might be critical, but they just don't stick in your head as much. Its immediately obvious how to build a party that specializes in utilizing the rogue's spike damage, whereas I'm not immediately sure how a party like, say, a paladin, fighter, and barbarian in a 3-person line with a chanter right behind them would hold up. Nothing really flashy there, but some nice stacking buffs and stacking effects. Holding multiple people in place so that barbarians can use Carnage constantly sounds like nice synergy, but it doesn't have BIG NUMBERS!!! like the rogue does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I do hope there are options for a melee ranger because rogues can't get pets, but I wouldn't cry if there aren't. It think playing as a Druid (pets + melee + magic) would let you build that sort of character while retaining Optimum Powergaming Statz. There's also the Talents that have been mentioned. I assume the basic choice with all talents will be to either mitigate a weakness or accentuate a strength of the class. So in addition to picking talents that aren't class-specific, perhaps there could be some Ranger-specific Talents to extend existing Abilities to melee weapons, or enhance their crowd-control capabilities so they aren't thunderfucked if they get mobbed (cf. the Rogue's evasion stuff, and the Ranger's existing RoF-for-Accuracy tradeoff modal ability), and other Talents that reinforce the existing ranged-combat and single-target-spike-damage strengths of Rangers, either by giving bonuses with certain specific weapon types (so you'd take the gun perk if you want your Ranger to be like Solomon Kane, or the longbow perk if you want him to be Robin Hood, etc) or by giving him a Headshot (cliche as it may be) 1/encounter talent or whatever. As an aside, has there been any discussion from the devs as to how/when Talents are given out? Eg. do we know whether you get a choice between several at a certain level a-la the recent XCOM, or whether it's going to be like Fallout perks where you can always pick from the backlog of prior-level perks in addition to whichever new ones are unlocked by levelling, or something completely different (gaining them by quest rather than by level, some other level-unlocking scheme, etc)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
AFAIK druids don't have pets, the animal companions are a prerogative of the rangers. Druids only get were-forms that are PoE's equivalent of shapeshifting except you still get to cast spells and, I think, use weapons and items. That said, class concepts have been retooled and iterated upon a lot, so it's difficult to say if they still play like that unless rope kid comes here and says "yeah they still play like that".
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
I would say my only concern at this point would be combat pacing and management. With so many active abilities it will be interesting to see how it plays. I am curious to see how chaotic and fast battles are and how it relates to using abilities, even with pausing. Is it generally expected that some party members will be ignored unless you are a pause fiend? Hand Row fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Jan 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:
I dunno, people often play as things other than fighters in D&D based games, despite the fact that fighters are the main damage dealers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Chairchucker posted:I dunno, people often play as things other than fighters in D&D based games, despite the fact that fighters are the main damage dealers. This hasn't been true in a long, long time. Even in 4e it wasn't really true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:This hasn't been true in a long, long time. Even in 4e it wasn't really true. If you have never destroyed a boss in half a turn before the rest of the party even got to move then you have never properly built a fighter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Hand Row posted:I would say my only concern at this point would be combat pacing and management. With so many active abilities it will be interesting to see how it plays. I am curious to see how chaotic and fast battles are and how it relates to using abilities, even with pausing. Keep in mind a lot of those abilities are per-rest, so they'll run out fairly quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Clever Spambot posted:If you have never destroyed a boss in half a turn before the rest of the party even got to move then you have never properly built a fighter. or played a sub-optimal wizard
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
I guess the Drizzt wannabes are back in it. I can't understand how they miss the part of "ranger" that means "fights at a range". Maybe Aragorn is to blame too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:or played a sub-optimal wizard I don't know what spell you are casting that lets you kill a boss instantly in half a turn but your dm is garbage for not making them immune/resistant to it. Granted the dm was garbage in my game for not giving him more health and AC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Isn't the title of "Ranger" more to do with them "Ranging" the wilderness than fighting at range?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Mordaedil posted:I can't understand how they miss the part of "ranger" that means "fights at a range". I don't think that means what you think it means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Rangers have been a lot of things over a long span of time. Aragorn/1st Ed./2nd Ed./3.X/4E rangers can't all be reconciled, really. They went (in 1st Ed.) from being pretty narrowly defined and powerful to widely-defined and not-so-powerful -- and then back to narrowly-defined and powerful in 4E. Additionally, the IE games didn't do an outstanding job of portraying the RAW rangers, so people have the views on the class that they bring from those games. I think the best thing for us to do is look into how applicable the rangers' abilities are to melee combat and go from there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
I don't know how RK deals with all these people. I don't think we are half as bad here.quote:Apparently Obsidian needs to dust off their AD&D collection and spend an evening reacquainting themselves with the roots of the IE series of games. Saying Obsidian needs to dust off on D&D is like telling Bill Gates to go to a Business School class. quote:They call Rogues "heavy hitters". WOW calls them "DPS Kings". But in the IE games, and of course in D&D, they were nothing of the sort. They were the sneaks and the scouts. They were the lock pickers, trap disarmers, trap setters and pickpockets. In combat, they weren't the heaviest hitters. Not by a long shot. They could backstab for massive damage but only on occasion. They used the lower tier weapons, like Daggers and short swords. Not the big guns that the true heavy hitters used, like massive swords and greataxes. "The definition of Rogue in my head is totally better than the definition you have in yours!" God forbid we keep the same name but use it for something different (and equally valid). quote:I don't mind the rogue so much. It reminds me a bit of characters like the Grey Mouser, who while a "rogue" (and thief!) was also a hell of a fighter. Just depends on how you think of "heavy hitters" I guess. The ranger I have a problem with. I love the idea of a pet...in fact I think ALL classes should be able to get one, even without super special abilities, but I don't think the ranger should be REQUIRED to have one. And I want a ranger like Aragorn, ideally kickin' rear end with two swords. That kind of character doesn't seem possible....If I can get a dual wielding fighter with lots of outdoorsman/survival/tracking skills that will suffice, even if I don't get to choose his class as "Ranger". But if I can't make that character one way or the other. I'm gonna be mad disappointed. "I don't care about Rogues, but I want to play Aragorn and Aragorn is a RANGER so the RANGER in PoE must be like Aragorn." It's not like, as was pointed out to him, he can just roll a fighter or rogue and bump the Survival skill and pretend that weed over there is Athelas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Furism posted:I don't know how RK deals with all these people. I don't think we are half as bad here. Obsidian's forum is pretty tough to read. Between Lephys derailing every POE thread with massive wall of texts and Stun constantly trolling with the 'BG2 = perfection' gimmick its no wonder rope kid posts more information over here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Space Pussy posted:Obsidian's forum is pretty tough to read. Between Lephys derailing every POE thread with massive wall of texts and Stun constantly trolling with the 'BG2 = perfection' gimmick its no wonder rope kid posts more information over here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Right? While at the same time complaining that the class archetypes are too limited. Maybe if they'd stop obsessing over the name of the class, they'd be a little more chill about the whole thing. Want to be a ranged character specializing in spike damage but don't want the pet? Play a rogue, give them a bow. Yay! Want to be a really heavy hitter? Play a rogue, give them a hugeass sword, name them Conan. I do hope there are options for a melee ranger because rogues can't get pets, but I wouldn't cry if there aren't. Incidentally, I don't see a reason why you couldn't build a melee ranger. Sure, you couldn't use two of their starting abilities, but none of their other, animal-related abilities require a ranged weapon. (Stalker's Link just provided a ranged effect that would already exist if they were in melee combat). Glad I'm not the only one to think exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Lotish posted:Glad I'm not the only one to think exactly that. Made most explicit in Age of Conan, where Barbarian was in fact a rogue class that could use two-handed weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Furism posted:grognards.txt Jesus christ, why did so many terrible people have to back this. Incidentally, I wonder how viable suboptimal characters like melee rangers will turn out to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Ever since D&D 4E the idea that Rogues should be kinda squishy but able to put out a lot of damage (so that they're good at *something* not super situational in combat) has been linked to WoW, even though D&D 3E pioneered that with the 1d6/2 level sneak attack. It's bizarre. So is the idea that if WoW did something (give rogues the option for high damage spikes) nothing else should do that ever. The days of "some guys can only contribute in specific situations" are, or should be, over, grognards! Rogues shouldn't have to basically sit out the fight and Fighters shouldn't have to sit out everything that *isn't* a fight.
LogicNinja fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Jan 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
I noticed in the update that there will be more class skills than those listed. Any idea how many we should expect for each class, and will all classes have the same amount?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Was there a conscious decision to make a D&D-like game but stripped of all reference to LotR? I'm as over LotR as anyone but wasn't it the most popular and credible aspect of D&D?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Somewhere I will dig up a video of a 20 dex 20 str thief build from Arcanum soloing Kerghan by stunning him and backstabbing repeatedly with Kryggird's Falchion (giant-rear end endgame sword, for those of the Chris Avellone persuasion) for a zillion damage. Then I will register in the Obsidian forums and post it in that loving thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Was there a conscious decision to make a D&D-like game but stripped of all reference to LotR? I'm as over LotR as anyone but wasn't it the most popular and credible aspect of D&D? Uh, kind of? Sort of? Not really? LotR stuff like
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Was there a conscious decision to make a D&D-like game but stripped of all reference to LotR? I'm as over LotR as anyone but wasn't it the most popular and credible aspect of D&D? What references to LotR are you talking about? Do you have a specific D&D setting in mind when talking about them? I mean, from what we've seen so far, PoE seems about as related to Tolkien as modern D&D setting, i.e. it's a derivative of it, but not quite a carbon copy, and fairly different tone-wise Fair Bear Maiden fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jan 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Grouchy Fish posted:I noticed in the update that there will be more class skills than those listed. Any idea how many we should expect for each class, and will all classes have the same amount?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
rope kid posted:All classes have two skills they have a bonus in. The skill list is not particularly large, but we will probably use a weighted progression for them, so the bonus is significant but not as dramatic as the class/cross-class divide in 3.X. 3E had a pretty glaring problem with cross-class skills being almost entirely useless (since difficulties are calibrating for someone maxing the skill, and someone cross-classing it falls further and further behind). How's PoE going to handle characters who splash Stealth or Survival or etc? Is the goal to have them still be able to succeed on a decent number of important checks, or is it more for side benefits inherent in the skills, or something else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
The advancement will probably be weighted, so dumping points into one skill is not particularly efficient, though it will give you the highest score possible. If you dabble in a bunch of stuff, you won't be dramatically behind the specialist. You'll be less likely to pass any threshold checks, but you also have higher skill scores on average. All skills also have bonuses that apply even if you're not "unlocking" whatever "locks" stand in your way. If you have one character with 18 Mechanics and another with 10 Mechanics, the former is probably going to be picking more locks than the latter, but traps set by the latter still benefit from the 10 Mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Furism posted:I don't know how RK deals with all these people. I don't think we are half as bad here. Get off your high horse. It wasn't that long ago there were literally tens of pages of man children crying over things like intelligence score increasing damage. Don't get me wrong, I wish you were right, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:It's like they don't understand that a melee ranger would just be a rogue. I haven't looked in the Obsidian forum thread, but looking at the skills listed I can't agree with that at all. Rogues are mobile and hit like a truck. Rangers look to have a bunch of synergistic pet stuff that define that class, I don't see why they need to completely box them into a ranged playstyle. I will admit when I was looking down the rogue skill list, the first thing I checked was seeing if the sneak attacks and other direct attacks were applicable to ranged weaponry (and I was happy to see they were). Putting restrictions on skills and perks that artificially constrain a character into playing a certain weapon style for no discernible reason really annoys me. A base, level 1 ability like: "Swift Aim (Modal) - This mode increases the ranger's rate of fire and reload with ranged weapons at the cost of an Accuracy penalty" - why. Having that ranged-only just sucks. I look at that and it's saying to me, don't even bother with melee, full stop. Looking down the ranger skill list, if you search and deleted the word 'ranged' I wouldn't feel anything would be lost at all. Players should be encouraged to pick up bows by being provided with bonuses and in other ways, but not by locking everything else out. And if someone stumbles onto some crazy combination of special weapon, skill setup, talent, and animal companion that can turn a ranger into a melee juggernaut, then you can't be afraid that the core class design is not going according to plan. I think weird experimentation should be encouraged, not stamped out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 06:46
|
|
