Codex Review RPG Codex Retrospective Review: Pillars of Eternity Revisited

[Azarkon]

There is NO difference between Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 and Pillars of Eternity when it comes to how the character building process generally works.

I still maintain there is. In NWN2, you pick a class/prestige class combination to go for, and then you colour inside the lines. In Pillars, you pick a general character concept limited mostly by your imagination, and then figure out the best way to build that. NWN2 tells you exactly what skills and feats you need to take to get the combo you want; in Pillars, you discover the synergies and the tactics that make the most of them. It's the difference between a colouring book and a blank canvas.

You pick a class in Pillars of Eternity. You do realize this, yes? The class is the coloring book. You can't get away from using wizard spells when you pick a wizard and you can't get away from using chants when you pick a chanter.

In Neverwinter Nights, you can actually pick a fighter at level 1 and then switch to being a mage at level 5, suddenly getting access to a completely different set of mechanics in the form of spells. You can't do this in Pillars of Eternity. By your own standard, Pillars of Eternity is a vastly inferior system.

But there are no prerequisites for that choice in Pillars. And while we don't know much about multiclassing and subclassing in Pillars 2 yet, I would be surprised if any of those combinations had prerequisites attached.

Prerequisites are bad, why? It doesn't make sense for the most powerful feats and prestige classes to be available to a player without sacrificing anything. Provided there is to be a power differential between feats and classes, as there are in Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, there has to be costs, or else we have a situation that becomes the very definition of a few optimal choices surrounded by a legion of trap choices.

Imagine, for a moment, that I have an epic feat called Summon Dragon that summons an ancient dragon to fight for you. Should this feat be allowed to be taken by any class at level 1? Would that make sense? When you remove prerequisites, you're limited to either making all feats small, linear increases in power, or you create a game that doesn't make any sense. Now does that describe any game we know?

 

[Ulfhednar]

Prerequisites are bad, why? It doesn't make sense for the most powerful feats and prestige classes to be available to a player without sacrificing anything. Provided there is to be a power differential between feats and classes, as there are in Dungeons and Dragons 3.5, there has to be costs, or else we have a situation that becomes the very definition of a few optimal choices surrounded by a legion of trap choices.

Imagine, for a moment, that I have an epic feat called Summon Dragon that summons an ancient dragon to fight for you. Should this feat be allowed to be taken by any class at level 1? Would that make sense? When you remove prerequisites, you're limited to either making all feats small, linear increases in power, or you create a game that doesn't make any sense. Now does that describe any game we know?

Prerequiste feats/talents for other more powerful feats/talents are fine - Pillars does that. But Pillars does not restrict classes or (presumably) class combinations in any way except for the following: You can only pick up to two.

 

[Jaedar]

I feel you people complaining about prestige classes in 3.5 also miss that you can take multiple base classes. You don't have to be a fancy red wizard scholar of candlekeep, you can just be a sorceror fighter cleric eldritch knight. Taking only a single base class is like shooting yourself in the foot!

 

[Ulfhednar]

Be more specific. It would be a lie about base D&D3 without prestige classes.

It is entirely true about OD&D, AD&D1 and 2, and D&D3 with prestige classes.

(I don't know how true it is about D&D4 and 5, since I'm not familiar with these systems.)



Because you can skew classes different ways by picking different stat distributions, abilities, talents, and items.



The difference is that with AD&D kits, all you have to do is open your mouth and lick the spoon the game designer is sticking into your mouth like a good little boy, whereas with Pillars /you're/ the one doing the exploration and coming up with the build.



If that was all there was to it, then yeah it wouldn't be all that much. It's not though -- one ranger does the damage himself, another supports the pet doing it, etc. etc., which you're conveniently ignoring.



Enough that it'll make you suffer at PotD (if you're good at the game) or Hard (if you're only reasonably good).

I feel you people complaining about prestige classes in 3.5 also miss that you can take multiple base classes. You don't have to be a fancy red wizard scholar of candlekeep, you can just be a sorceror fighter cleric eldritch knight. Taking only a single base class is like shooting yourself in the foot!

 

[Lacrymas]

You aren't forced to go with a prestige class, though. You can be a Fighter/Rogue/Bard who specializes in Longbows. Sure, you can add Arcane Archer into that, but only if you are an elf and if you want to. Arcane Archer isn't necessarily better than going only Fighter/Rogue/Bard, it's just a little bit different.

 

[Ulfhednar]

I don't disagree - the goalposts keep changing. This was originally about Pillars compared to AD&D in BG2.

 

[Jason Liang]

Actually, I did not. I only rated posts of yours in like the last 2 pages (get over it) and I didn't see any link.
But assume I'm blind, and just give me two builds of the same class and explain to me how they're so off-the-wall and how they play so different from each other.

Fine, here's one.

Melee ranger built around Tidefall and maxing out pet damage, wearing Shod-in-faith. You play it by engaging your target with the pet, then joining in. Tidefall gives the target DoT which the pet exploits. You heal yourself and your pet by occasionally getting critted, which will trigger Shod-in-faith. Stats on main character are primarily defensive without maxing RES, because your job is to assist your pet. It's off-the-wall because it's... not ranged, and it makes your pet the main damage dealer rather than you.

Point of comparison is the "standard" ranger, built around ranged weapons with the pet a tanky meat shield and you the main damage dealer. In this case you'll have the pet in the frontline as you hang back shooting away, healing your pet with your pet-healing talents as necessary. The pet is primarily a "spotter."

Both require you to coordinate the pet and master, but the way you coordinate them is completely different. The first build will have brutal single-target damage output, but it will only be able to attack frontline targets; the second build will be a mage-killer as your tanky pet will be able to scoot behind enemy lines and your ranged ranger will be able to quickly eliminate them at... range. Almost as if they were two completely different kits!

So here's my point.

Now explain why this set up only works with ranger. Why can't you do the exact same thing with Rogue, Monk or Fighter? It seems you've made this setup just to leverage 1 feat so that your pet does more damage (using Tidefall), when Rogues and Monks also have feats that deal more damage.

 

[Prime Junta]

So here's my point.

Now explain why this set up only works with ranger. Why can't you do the exact same thing with Rogue, Monk or Fighter? It seems you've made this setup just to leverage 1 feat so that your pet does more damage (using Tidefall), when Rogues and Monks also have feats that deal more damage.

Uh... because rogues, monks, and fighters don't have pets and therefore their base gameplay is completely different?

By your argument, the only difference between a fighter and a wizard is numbers. It's like you're treating this as a spreadsheet and forgetting that there's an actual game there you have to play.

 

[Jasede]

While I did join it for a while, ultimately this argument seems completely pointless. This seems to be a matter of deeply personal taste and preference. One group finds making hard, irreversible choices (kits) with drastic, immediate gameplay effects appealing; the other group likes to build their own (allegedly diverse) characters over time in a system offering more choices that, however, occur at gradients too subtle to make the first group happy.

(I always try to find a way to understand everyone and find something both can agree on. It's clear I am firmly in camp 1, PJ in 2. I think that's why it's really hard to even argue about it because we come from completely opposite preferences/perspectives in this matter.)

 

[Prime Junta]

(I always try to find a way to understand everyone and find something both can agree on. It's clear I am firmly in camp 1, PJ in 2. I think that's why it's really hard to even argue about it because we come from completely opposite preferences/perspectives in this matter.)

Yeah I suppose it may be pointless to argue about it in terms of "better" or "worse" since these are games, and "better" or "worse" boils down to "more or less enjoyable" which is always subjective.

There may be other arguments worth having here though.

 

[luj1]

"better" or "worse" boils down to "more or less enjoyable" which is always subjective.

 

[ArchAngel]

Here's your problem: There is no barbarian in your class selection.

I did play through the thing with a scythe-wielding fighter/barb/frenzied berserker once. It was a leetle more free-form, true.

Noob. Best combinations was Barbarian/Bard/Dragon Disciple/Frenzied Berserker.

 

[DramaticPopcorn]

Incredible thread

 

[Chaotic_Heretic]

DnD 3.5e system is infinitely more fun and diverse than Piles of Shit can ever be. I can't figure out wether Prime Junta is a retarded shit poster or his nose is so deep in josh swayer's ass with obshitian shillings in his wallet that he cant and wont see what he is typing with his DnD prestige classes is colouring book "argument".

You could take prestige classes as early as lv 7 in nwn2

 

[Lurker King]

This seems to be a matter of deeply personal taste and preference.

That's because you are assuming that preferences about specific types of games, that require specific types of models of reality and systems, with specific type of gameplay, is completely arbitrary. Just because you are too lazy to think about these subjects or are assuming relativism it doesn't follow is arbitrary. Far from it.

 

[Sizzle]

This seems to be a matter of deeply personal taste and preference.

That's because you are assuming that preferences about specific types of games, that require specific types of models of reality and systems, with specific type of gameplay, is completely arbitrary. Just because you are too lazy to think about these subjects or are assuming relativism it doesn't follow is arbitrary. Far from it.

 

[Ulfhednar]

DnD 3.5e system is infinitely more fun and diverse than Piles of Shit can ever be. I can't figure out wether Prime Junta is a retarded shit poster or his nose is so deep in josh swayer's ass with obshitian shillings in his wallet that he cant and wont see what he is typing with his DnD prestige classes is colouring book "argument".

You could take prestige classes as early as lv 7 in nwn2

Considering how strongly D&D 3.5 embraces multiclassing, it seems premature for an honest comparison to the Pillar's system, as we have limited information about how multiclassing/subclassing will be implemented.

That said, I think Pillar's current system with only single classes easily rivals any cRPG implementation of AD&D, so I am pretty hopeful about PoE 2.

 

[Jasede]

This seems to be a matter of deeply personal taste and preference.

That's because you are assuming that preferences about specific types of games, that require specific types of models of reality and systems, with specific type of gameplay, is completely arbitrary. Just because you are too lazy to think about these subjects or are assuming relativism it doesn't follow is arbitrary. Far from it.

You're a fucking moron if you are such an asshat you can't read my consistent posts and still not grasp I am the opposite of a relativist. When I extend a relative olive branch it is because the argument has grown boring and is not making headway; I can still deep down prefer my way without rubbing it in someone's face and being an asshole about it.

Sadly a kind of moron like yourself, shat out from a disgusting cunt, wouldn't grasp these subtleties.

 

[Old One]

Prestige classes: Build your character in this specific way to meet the requirements.

This is off on a tangent, but I've always considered prestige classes to be little more than a crass marketing ploy by WoC. They promote every garbage product they make by saying it includes a few new prestige classes. Their customers have a carefully-cultivated craving for them.

Carry on...

 

[Fenris 2.0]

Discussing Presitige Classes is more interesting then PoE;

so: being able to join the Knights of Solamnia after being knighted because of a very heroic deed and taking the appropiate Prestige Class is cool, becoming a Tempest to optimize Dual Wield by taking some pretty useless Feats for a Dual Wielder is not.

 

[Prime Junta]

This is how I encouraged use of prestige classes in my campaign (partly because all but one didn't care all that much for minmaxing). One of them got to pick Royal Explorer after being appointed one by the King of Zhou for story reasons. (I had to waive some of the requirements, but since I'm DM I get to do that when narratively appropriate.)

 

[Lhynn]

Grunker Prime Junta 3E charbuilding is frontloaded and shit, PoE charbuilding is frontloaded and shit. Most games charbuilding is frontloaded and shit, and its by design. And i hate it.
This is the reason im so in love with 5e, its completely up to the player what comes next, all choices are at least worth considering, it doesnt punish free form gameplay and almost every alternative is viable. This is how systems should be designed imo, its a beauty.

 

[Ibn Sina]

Obsidian is trash. Never have I been exposed to such a dull and uninspired fantasy setting like that of PoE. That fact that they made the black people Italians and the faux historian Josh Swayer excused it by basically saying that he does not know any other civilizational trope to associate them with and thus went for the tried and true Euro angle. He could have used Swahili culture for instance, which was a hot bed of trade and commerce all the way to the 17th century. Or he could have made the Vailans similar to Imperial Mali in its glory days, with its powerful Mansa ruling an abundantly rich empire all across the Niger river. Its trade and Influence extending all the way to the Nile bastion and North Africa. There are dozens of interesting and colorful cultures they could have used , but they made them Italians, which shows how extremely dull and uninspired the writers of this setting are. They know nothing about the world.

 

[Hell March]

Grunker Prime Junta 3E charbuilding is frontloaded and shit, PoE charbuilding is frontloaded and shit. Most games charbuilding is frontloaded and shit, and its by design. And i hate it.
This is the reason im so in love with 5e, its completely up to the player what comes next, all choices are at least worth considering, it doesnt punish free form gameplay and almost every alternative is viable. This is how systems should be designed imo, its a beauty.

Clearly you're not using "frontloaded" in the way I'm used to hearing it--that's usually used as a criticism for games that have character building and leveling systems bound to their starting point. 3.5, with it's many problems, is the exact opposite of frontloaded because the choices you make at character creation have only a slight bit of impact on how you would end up at high levels, not counting dumb stuff like Rogue/Fighters being better off starting as Fighters than Rogues because of the extra HP. 5E has characters that are almost fundamentally complete at character creation because of the archetype system. Clerics have to make a choice of domains at character creation which have class features that they literally will not get for another 5 levels.

And in POE every feat/talent/whatever is completely inconsequential so the only leveling mechanism that actually matters is the Wizard picking spells.

 

[Lhynn]

Clearly you're not using "frontloaded" in the way I'm used to hearing it--that's usually used as a criticism for games that have character building and leveling systems bound to their starting point. 3.5, with it's many problems, is the exact opposite of frontloaded because the choices you make at character creation have only a slight bit of impact on how you would end up at high levels, not counting dumb stuff like Rogue/Fighters being better off starting as Fighters than Rogues because of the extra HP.

In 3E if you havent mapped your character build before you named your character you are doing it wrong. Hilariously wrong in fact, you will more than likely end up with a useless gimp. The system was designed with a lot of bad options that will ruin your character, in fact almost every feat, every skill and every class in the game is a trap choice, this also includes around 90% of the prestiges.
This is the shit that traumatized sawyer so bad that he ended up doing a 360º, and ended up being equally bad for different reasons.

5E has characters that are almost fundamentally complete at character creation because of the archetype system.

This is false, you can make a paladin/wizard/rogue and still end up being good, not as strong as a pure class but fairly flexible and with tons of valid options in any given encounter. You can suddenly at level 10 as a cleric take a level in barbarian and get something out of that choice, your character wasnt ruined, you just opened another venue for the character in exchange for closing a different one.

Clerics have to make a choice of domains at character creation which have class features that they literally will not get for another 5 levels.

Every class is like this, subclasses, which for example as a wizard you pick at level 1, as a fighter at level 3, grant different features until level 17 or so. But a ton of characters can take just the first level of wizard for the level 1 class feature, or the first level of cleric for the first level features and pick a different class to advance. This will not really diminish the character, it will simply open new options at the cost of not opening a different door.

It is true that the first levels of classes tend to be really great compared to the ones that follow, but this is because the ones that follow build up on existing skills, and mechanically theres always more value on specializing than on becoming more flexible, unless you give a real boost to said flexibibility.

Also in true Dnd fashion a rogue/barbarian is a great combo, you can larp conan and be effective!

And in POE every feat/talent/whatever is completely inconsequential

This is not true tho. In PoE your choices do have consequences, you can end up with a shit character thats a pain to play, or you can end up with one that can solo the entire campaign.
The problem with PoEs system does not lay in the importance of the choices in any given build.

so the only leveling mechanism that actually matters is the Wizard picking spells.

This isnt true either. As a wizard you can pick up every spell in the game as you adventure anyway.

Your ignorance is pretty staggering, go back to lurking, come back in 2020.