Codex Review RPG Codex Retrospective Review: Pillars of Eternity Revisited

[Jasede]

I was talking abilities, not Perks. Feats/Perks are or can be big in both systems. I meant ability scores, like Strength, Dexterity. Erm, excuse me, 'Might' because every wizard is a muscle wizard... What I mean, and you clearly know I mean this because I have harped about this since Pillars came out, is the fact that if I put 1 point into an ability, the difference between 15 and 16 is the same as 8 and 9, and that the increments are usually a mere 3% or something similarly small. I see very little functional difference in having 30% more damage for a 10 point ability score investment. That does not feel good to me. Acceptable in an MMORPG, surely, where the point is the endgame and getting gear, but hardly in a game like this.

Oh, the ability scores again. Sure, keep whining about them and ignore the rest of the system.

I'll just point out that the D&D based cRPGs might as well not have ability scores, because there's only one sane way to distribute them for each class; you just have to roll a few times to get that distribution. That's an order of magnitude dumber.

I have already explained this in some other thread and will not do so again.
As to the 'keep whining' thing: ability scores are the first thing you decide about your character, or roll. They affect the rest of the entire game fundamentally. If they do not feel significant, if such a pillar (heh) of the game is already crumbling before the game starts this problem will ripple and echo through the entire other systems.
The other systems are dull as well, but we can agree to disagree.

Still, if you cannot acknowledge that ability scores are perhaps the most important thing as all starts and comes from them I don't think we will ever be on the same page, even if we disagreed on that page.

Anyway, excuse me. It's Sunday so I am playing Grimoire, finally.

 

[Prime Junta]

I don't see choosing a feat that increases pet damage or accuracy (Merciless Companion, or your example, which is actually Stalker's Sense) and a feat that increases my damage or accuracy (Backstab or for Ranger, the cross-class sneak attack) as a crucial difference.

Then you're blind bro. The former requires you to coordinate two toons -- the pet and the ranger. The latter requires you to micro one toon (the rogue, to get him into and out of trouble). You play them different ways, and each will make different fights harder or easier.

Just like Monks have Duality of Mortal Presence (+8 deflection) while Rangers have Arrow Sense (+15 deflection vs. ranged attacks) isn't a crucial difference either.

Uh, so, ranged defence is exactly like melee defence. Right.

Sure, each class has slightly different offensive and defensive potential but, by endgame, all of the tank-> striker classes end up at about the same place, all of the casters end up at about the same place, and all of the hybrid casters end up at about the same place, even if they are taking different paths to get there.

Dude, now I know you're full of shit. Just play the game. A high-level monk plays nothing like a high-level ranger, which plays nothing like a high-level rogue, which plays nothing like a high-level barb.

 

[Grunker]

I don't see choosing a feat that increases pet damage or accuracy (Merciless Companion, or your example, which is actually Stalker's Sense) and a feat that increases my damage or accuracy (Backstab or for Ranger, the cross-class sneak attack) as a crucial difference. Just like Monks have Duality of Mortal Presence (+8 deflection) while Rangers have Arrow Sense (+15 deflection vs. ranged attacks) isn't a crucial difference either. Sure, each class has slightly different offensive and defensive potential but, by endgame, all of the tank-> striker classes end up at about the same place, all of the casters end up at about the same place, and all of the hybrid casters end up at about the same place, even if they are taking different paths to get there.

Again with this reductive shit. If a Monk and a Ranger in PoE feel identical to you, well, then every class in every RPG are similar. It's nonsense without context - you just invent some self-defined "striker" type and lob them in with each other regardless of the actual substantial differences.

 

[Prime Junta]

Still, if you cannot acknowledge that ability scores are perhaps the most important thing as all starts and comes from them I don't think we will ever be on the same page, even if we disagreed on that page.

Yep, I totally don't acknowledge that. And I entirely recognise that we won't ever be on the same page. Between us, there can be only war .

Ability scores /were/ the most important thing in OD&D. Ever since AD&D introduced munchkiny ways to roll which gave you optimal stats for your special snowflake, they became flavour only -- something you might as well roll into the classes and remove altogether. In Pillars at least they play /some/ role -- you can use them effectively to skew a build towards attack or defence, and you /will/ feel the difference in gameplay. A toon with shit defensive stats will not work effectively as a tank, however you kit him.

 

[Darth Roxor]

toons

 

[Jasede]

Well, even if our opinions are radically opposite, at least we can argue in a relatively civilized manner so there's that.

Huh, I can't download Grimoire for some reason. Gonna contact Steam support.

Edit: as Roxor pointed out humorously, your use of MMORPG lingo is telling and gives credence to my thesis that PoE feels MMORPG-esque.

 

[Barghest]

There is a special level in hell for people for people who use the word 'toons'

 

[Prime Junta]

Edit: as Roxor pointed out humorously, your use of MMORPG lingo is telling and gives credence to my thesis that PoE feels MMORPG-esque.

Funny thing is, I've never played any MMORPG. But go ahead and attack my choice of words, if that's all you've got left.

 

[Jason Liang]

Then you're blind bro. The former requires you to coordinate two toons -- the pet and the ranger. The latter requires you to micro one toon (the rogue, to get him into and out of trouble). You play them different ways, and each will make different fights harder or easier.



Uh, so, ranged defence is exactly like melee defence. Right.



Dude, now I know you're full of shit. Just play the game. A high-level monk plays nothing like a high-level ranger, which plays nothing like a high-level rogue, which plays nothing like a high-level barb.

A monk feat gives +8 deflection- which also improves ranged attack defense by +8. A ranger feat gives +15 deflection against ranged attacks. At endgame, a ranger will be slightly better against ranged attacks than a monk, and slightly worse against melee. It isn't a crucial ifference.

Again with this reductive shit. If a Monk and a Ranger in PoE feel identical to you, well, then every class in every RPG are similar. It's nonsense without context - you just invent some self-defined "striker" type and lob them in with each other regardless of the actual substantial differences.

Except that when you play BG2, the way you use Minsc is completely different from how you use Edwin. In fact, the way you use Valygar is completely different from Minsc, and both are rangers!

 

[Jasede]

It is not fair to pit BG2 against PoE as, due to the kits, PoE has no way of competing.
For a fair comparison we should look to BG1.

 

[Jaedar]

Ability scores /were/ the most important thing in OD&D. Ever since AD&D introduced munchkiny ways to roll which gave you optimal stats for your special snowflake, they became flavour only -- something you might as well roll into the classes and remove altogether. In Pillars at least they play /some/ role -- you can use them effectively to skew a build towards attack or defence, and you /will/ feel the difference in gameplay. A toon with shit defensive stats will not work effectively as a tank, however you kit him.

See AoD for a good way to handle player stats as a way to make truly meaningful choices with them. Except charisma, but they fixed that in the sequel.

A monk feat gives +8 deflection- which also improves ranged attack defense by +8. A ranger feat gives +15 deflection against ranged attacks. At endgame, a ranger will be slightly better against ranged attacks than a monk, and slightly worse against melee. It isn't a crucial ifference.

iirc each level in pillars gives +3 accuracy and +3 deflection (I might even go so far as to say this is the main effect of leveling on your character), so a monk feat is an effective +3 level in defense, whereas ranger feat is effective +5 level in defense. Given the level cap is (was?) 20, I'm not sure it can be argued its insignificant, but it certainly is boring as all hell.

 

[fobia]

This discussion doesn't work when one argues purely from theory or articles one read on the wiki Jason Liang.

Your monk vs. ranger argument only shows that you missed Prime Junta's argument completely. It's obvious that you didn't play the game.

 

[Ulfhednar]

In fact, the way you use Valygar is completely different from Minsc, and both are rangers!

"You point, I punch!"

Minsc spells it out for you.

 

[Prime Junta]

A monk feat gives +8 deflection- which also improves ranged attack defense by +8. A ranger feat gives +15 deflection against ranged attacks. At endgame, a ranger will be slightly better against ranged attacks than a monk, and slightly worse against melee. It isn't a crucial ifference.

That would only be true if both abilities were in and of themselves insignificant. The monk will have 8 higher melee deflection than the ranger, and the ranger will have 7 higher ranged deflection than the monk. I.e., your statement is true iff 7 or 8 DEFL either way makes no difference.

But... that's not the argument you're making, is it now?

What's more, it's not true that 7 or 8 DEFL makes little difference. That's toward the upper range of what things confer -- Sword and Shield style gives +10 (with an attack penalty), and shields themselves are in the same range. I.e. your statement is false either way.

Finally, the whole statement is nonsensical, because it's based on the assertion that ranged and melee deflection are interchangeable. Which is a really fucking stupid thing to say: all the ranged deflection in the world won't help you if you wade into melee, and all the melee deflection in the world won't help you if you're hanging back being targeted by archers.

 

[Jason Liang]

It's true that I have only played the game for a few days. I do intend to play until White March, but White March better be MUCH MUCH better than Gilded Vale.

But I have tried using all the classes now except Barbarian. They really, really do not feel different enough, and they seem to converge as they progress, not diverge.

 

[Ulfhednar]

It is not fair to pit BG2 against PoE as, due to the kits, PoE has no way of competing.
For a fair comparison we should look to BG1.

PoE competes with the BG2 kits easily... that is what the talents do. PoE annhilates BG1 for build diversity.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

You're a bunch of ultra retards.

 

[Prime Junta]

It is not fair to pit BG2 against PoE as, due to the kits, PoE has no way of competing.

Not true. BG2 needs kits because the base classes are almost 100% on-rails, with the only variation supplied from the spell system and items. Pillars OTOH lets you roll your own, creating dramatically different builds within classes.

Put another way, BG2 is like picking a dishes from a very big menu, while Pillars is like cooking your own from scratch.

A lot of the BG2 dishes are very tasty, but there's not a lot of player creativity involved in them. You pick from what the designers deigned to offer you, instead of rolling your own.

 

[Jason Liang]

Again clearly the conflict is that you think +/- 8 deflection is a crucial and and signficant difference between two classes, whereas I don't see this as a crucial or significant difference. Just like a +6-10 accuracy feat isn't crucially different than one that adds 15-25% damage or one that adds 15-25% attack speed. It's all just dps in the end.

 

[Jason Liang]

It is not fair to pit BG2 against PoE as, due to the kits, PoE has no way of competing.

Not true. BG2 needs kits because the base classes are almost 100% on-rails, with the only variation supplied from the spell system and items. Pillars OTOH lets you roll your own, creating dramatically different builds within classes.

Put another way, BG2 is like picking a dishes from a very big menu, while Pillars is like cooking your own from scratch.

A lot of the BG2 dishes are very tasty, but there's not a lot of player creativity involved in them. You pick from what the designers deigned to offer you, instead of rolling your own.

Then what's really the point of implementing a class system? The classes might as well be starting feats.

Again, Pillars is far more like a classless rpg sytem like Darklands.

Using your restaurant example, Pillars is a Mexican restaurant that serves strawberry burritos (crepes). It's an rpg that has classes but your character develops more like a Fallout character. A character's equipment defines them far more important than their class.

 

[Prime Junta]

Again clearly the conflict is that you think +/- 8 deflection is a crucial and and signficant difference between two classes, whereas I don't see this as a crucial or significant difference.

That wasn't your original argument. And your new one doesn't hold up any better: it would only be valid if this talent was the /only/ difference between monks and rangers. But it's not: it's not even close to being one of the more important ones.

Just like a +6-10 accuracy feat isn't crucially different than one that adds 15-25% damage or one that adds 15-25% attack speed. It's all just dps in the end.

Yeah, and?

 

[Parabalus]

I was talking abilities, not Perks. Feats/Perks are or can be big in both systems. I meant ability scores, like Strength, Dexterity. Erm, excuse me, 'Might' because every wizard is a muscle wizard... What I mean, and you clearly know I mean this because I have harped about this since Pillars came out, is the fact that if I put 1 point into an ability, the difference between 15 and 16 is the same as 8 and 9, and that the increments are usually a mere 3% or something similarly small. I see very little functional difference in having 30% more damage for a 10 point ability score investment. That does not feel good to me. Acceptable in an MMORPG, surely, where the point is the endgame and getting gear, but hardly in a game like this.

This FAKE NEWS about Pillars stats being thrash has to stop.

On a per point basis, PoE abilities are on the same level as Bg2, with only strength for melee/throw being close on certain scores.

Take dexterity, the difference from gooing from 10 to 20 DEX is +3 ranged hit and -4 AC. Pillars DEX gives you 30% attack speed and 20 Reflex. The 3+ hit (for ranged only) is much less of a DPS boost than 30 attack speed. The defensive stats are comparable.

Constitution on a Warrior class at 20 gives you +5 for the first 9 levels on 1d10, Pillars gives you +50%. Pillars breaks even on the first levels and wins after. You get shorty saves +1hp regen, but PoE gives everyone fortitude.

Charisma is useless (change party leader, RoHI, Friends [it only has discount value in Bg2, allegedly there are some checks in Bg1]). Intelligence is useless too, it just tells you which NPC's are shitty mages - it's a "you have to be this tall to ride" attribute, no gameplay value. Wisdom at 20 gives you 10 extra spells, this competes with PoE attributes affecting spells (INT, PER, MIG, DEX) and PoE simply giving you more spells naturally.

Strength vs Might requires some assumptions about your damage and enemy DR, and how you'd treat exceptional Strength. On a per point bases MIG starts losing out once you get past 18ish, but this isn't surprising, since melee weapon DPS in PoE benefits from DEX and PER too.

Shitting on PoE attributes and praising IE ones is mostly a FEELZ argument.

Except that when you play BG2, the way you use Minsc is completely different from how you use Edwin. In fact, the way you use Valygar is completely different from Minsc, and both are rangers!

Only difference in playstyle is I will maybe sometime try to backstab with Valygar, and be disappointed by the pathetic 3x stab. They have initially different proficiencies, which can be swapped around with levels or Level1NPC mods.

 

[Prime Junta]

Then what's really the point of implementing a class system? The classes might as well be starting feats.

Yeah, I think class systems are driven more by nostalgia than by actual gameplay requirements. Even so, if you have to have one, the point is to make the classes play differently and develop along different paths. Pillars succeeds in this much better than AD&D, where paladins, fighters, rangers, and barbarians are effectively interchangeable.*

Again, Pillars is far more like a classless rpg sytem like Darklands.

No it's not. The classes are very clearly differentiated by how they play. You /can/ converge some of them -- a hurty fighter feels a leetle like a tanky rogue -- but there's no way to make a fighter play like a ranger, a paladin like a fighter, or a rogue like a priest.

*Carsomyr, though. That is an /excellent/ way to justify the presence of an otherwise underwhelming class in the game -- whoever thought of that deserves a special seat in gamer Valhalla.

 

[Ulfhednar]

This FAKE NEWS about Pillars stats being thrash has to stop.

On a per point basis, PoE abilities are on the same level as Bg2, with only strength for melee/throw being close on certain scores.

It's always about the presentation, never about the substance. I doubt any of them have ever done the math to really understand what a +1 on a d20 roll really means.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Arguments ? Any ? D&D was made by someone who think that wearing better armor makes you harder to hit (?) How someone can be that much detached from reality? Maybe by basement windows? Dont make me started on spell memeorising when yo ucan memeorize 1 spell multiple times how is that even possible? Or unwieldable weapons like 2H hammers wtf???

This is the target audience of PoE and Obsidian in general.

This is why we can't have nice things.

This is why RPGs are dead.