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

[SCO]

what mr. arda could have done is directed the fucking artists to make stone buildings with arches/foundational structural parts/whatever without bricks that is, a single continuous surface. That would be convincing for a structurally sound strong material shaped by 'magic'. If you put in parts with bricks etc that would be even more convincing as later day agglutinations when the magic wasn't available, or just that the people doing that were busy and didn't care about nothing except the superstructure. Fuck you could do funny architecture stuff like 'ruins' where the primordial building is still standing because it's so much stronger, but the wings and added spires whatever are broken and fallen.

 

[Witiko]

That's extremely out of date information. The game will have no multiclassing.

Must have missed the announcement. In that case, though, it would seem that PoE actually will have much lesser "class flexibility" compared to the IE games. Can't really beat the combinatorial explosion provided by multi-classing even if you factor in the racial class restrictions.

 

[sea]

Hey look! one new tree model.

That's pretty good for a pre-paintover pass ?

Honestly I think in-game, at real game resolution, you wouldn't even notice. Baldur's Gate used tons of the same trees copy-pasted liberally everywhere and it never affected my perception of the realism of the environments.

 

[Infinitron]

Can't really beat the combinatorial explosion provided by multi-classing even if you factor in the racial class restrictions.

You can't, but IMO multi-classing/dual-classing was too much of an optional-feeling feature in these games, something that many/most players probably ignored and saw as "tacked on". It's more beneficial to make the core classes themselves more flexible. The designers will probably use it better too, when designing encounters.

In other news, I've made a thread about something that's been bugging me about Eternity's abundance of active abilities: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65...abilities-but-will-we-truly-need-to-use-them/

 

[861129]

Are pledges through the Codex fundraiser supposed to show normally on the backer site? I seem to have a badge on the Obsidian forums for pledging but can't get the pledge management thing to work.

 

[Infinitron]

Are pledges through the Codex fundraiser supposed to show normally on the backer site?

Er, no. You must have pledged directly to Obsidian too. Unless they gave you the badge by accident somehow.

 

[861129]

Er, no. You must have pledged directly to Obsidian too. Unless they gave you the badge by accident somehow.

oh, good. So we don't have to do anything to manage our pledges at this point?

 

[Infinitron]

Er, no. You must have pledged directly to Obsidian too. Unless they gave you the badge by accident somehow.

oh, good. So we don't have to do anything to manage our pledges at this point?

Who's "we"?

 

[861129]

Who's "we"?

I mean pledgers through the Codex fundraiser.

 

[Infinitron]

Who's "we"?

I mean pledgers through the Codex fundraiser.

Oh. Then no. But I'm not sure you're getting the game unless you're in the top 30 donors or however many copies we're getting.

 

[Infinitron]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65025-update-71-the-heavy-hitters-rogues-and-rangers/?p=1412602

 

[861129]

Thanks!

 

[Roguey]

The angst in that thread's delightful.

I did think it was an odd decision for Sawyer to abandon the dual-wielding nature of rangers considering it's something they've had in all the IE games. Would it break the balance if some of those ranged-only abilities also worked if the ranger was dual-wielding? I dunno. Obviously defensive shooting wouldn't work.

Some TTRPG-talk

shadowrun owns bc it's the dorkiest premise imaginable and completely self-serious. it does not own because firing your gun requires rolling 15d6 however many times your wired reflexes allow bullets to come out per round.

more importantly it does not own because wired reflexes and haste and shit let you take more actions than other players

a college friend of mine copied a lot of elements from shadowrun for a game he made including things like wired reflexes. i told him the system was going to break really easily and he didn't believe me, so i made a character that ruined his campaign. number of action adjustments: not even once.

Too bad those false g-ds working on Wasteland 2, Divinity Original Sin, and Dead State can't say the same.

 

[Excidium]

Yeah I'm not a big fan of "rangers are ranged" thing that has become the norm, even though I think drizzt clones are just as lame.

I guess the point is to create some distinction but I think the animal companion already serves that purpose.

 

[Sensuki]

Honestly I think in-game, at real game resolution, you wouldn't even notice.

Should I have added *dry sarcasm* to the post. They've already addressed the unique number of tree models somewhere, they're gonna go back and add more where it suits during post.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

Lazy cheap outsourced art is evident with floating rocks and brick arches missing keystones.

Looks more and more like nostalgia fueled money grab to me.

 

[Volrath]

Chaotic_Heretic a poor man's skyway.

 

[Athelas]

This is what happens when you stick with arbitrary archetypes BECAUSE NOSTALGIA.

Lazy cheap outsourced art is evident with floating rocks and brick arches missing keystones.

Looks more and more like nostalgia fueled money grab to me.

Welcome to Kickstarter.

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

I am also butthurt over this being RTwP. No RTwP RPG has got/ is ever getting my jewgold.

The shoddy sleazyness that is PE is evident with that retarded screenie.

Just hope Torment isn't shit, cause they already got my jewgold. And it being TB saved me plenty of butthurt.

 

[Infinitron]

Sawyer gets into a fight with the "CLASSES ARE TOO RIGID" crowd: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65...tters-rogues-and-rangers/page-11#entry1412648

 

[Excidium]

I almost feel sorry for Sawyer having to deal with this shit daily but nobody forced anyone to make a D&D-but-not-quite game

 

[Cyberarmy]

I don't mind a class is being "ranged only", there are many ways to make them interesting like short ranged throwing weapons master with high bleed/damage output, some mid ranged hit&run tactics guerilla type guy or a long ranged sniper. Add our little animal friend (which seems miles better than the ones before, they wwre mostly meat shileds/cannon fodder) to the party and possibilites rise in number.
Methniks there are too many Drizzt lovers out there.

 

[Excidium]

Not necessarily, some people might just enjoy the concept of the ranger but not want to play a ranged character. I don't really like to have classes pigeon-holed into weapon types like that. The main feature of the ranger is having an animal bro, just design the class around coordinating with the pet and let the player choose how he fights.

 

[Cosmo]

I almost feel sorry for Sawyer having to deal with this shit daily but nobody forced anyone to make a D&D-but-not-quite game

After all this the fact that some retards are stil able to say to say that Sawyer puts his own whims before everything else is beyond me...

 

[eremita]

I see that it is inevitable to ask this question: What is Ranger? Well, there is not one objective concept of the class, but I think we can turn to authorities. The biggest inspiration are for sure Tolkien's Rangers of course. I certainly disagree that Ranger as a class is define by some stupid animal or by shooting arrows. Those are not enough for defining a class... Tolkien's concept is generally a fighter (in DnD language) who is much more skillful in case of survival in wilderness - he can track, he can heal, he can do all sorts of different Rambo shit. On further consideration, we could thought of him as an equivalent of modern Special forces. At least I've always seen Ranger this way.

Sure, why don't we just earse "good melee" and add "animal lover" and we're basically where we started. But that would be heavily against that basic concept of "versatile warrior who can deal with/survive any situation". That's the difference I was trying to show between Archer or some kind of Woodsman/Hunter on one hand, and capable fighter, who also posses great deal of specific skills because of the way he lives/operates on the other. He really might be considered "guerilla type of guy" or "special forces type of guy" which means that no matter what he still is a trainedfighter/soldier in substance. Not some kind of fucking hobo with a bow who is deadly in wilderness, because he's chasing animal's asses here all day.

O course, in games, we have to balance... He can't be just an equivalent to fighter class with bonus shit. The answer might be in the way he fights; we could take away shield, heavy armor etc. etc. To be clear, I'm also not really a fan of 3.5DnD take on Rangers (too much Drizzt) but at least they still saw him for what he was from the beginings: a warrior class.