Review RPG Codex Review: Darth Roxor on Disappointment, thy name is Pillars of Eternity

[Ninjerk]

Pretty sure there's a few options that are so far-and-away better than everything else it doesn't make any sense not to take them (e.g. Gifted, not sure if there are others). The combat system in Fallout is also much-maligned for various reasons (fairly, I'd say).

 

[Tacgnol]

A strength increase in D&D felt noticeable on a melee character. In POE it just feels insignificant.

On POE my 21 might barbarian never felt significantly more powerful than any other character, whereas in D&D a high strength character would hit really damn hard.

It just feels insignificant? That's a pretty meaningless statement. Maybe you just can't find the combat log because they stupidly put it over to the right

The numbers don't lie, though, despite what your feels are telling you. A character with 21 might does significantly more damage than a character with 10 might. You can read all about it in the combat log or witness it as your enemies fall faster, so I'm not sure what to tell you except that your feelings have betrayed you

Maybe I worded that poorly, I was thinking more 21 might character vs one with 16, the difference isn't huge. Whereas with strength in D&D, the difference between say 14 and 19 would be far more significant in combat.

Some may prefer the attributes having less effect, personally I would have doubled the damage bonus on might. Though I also would have made might purely for melee/physical damage and not spell damage.

 

[tuluse]

Can I be filled in? Would he tell me I'm a retard for liking the system?

I guess my knowledge of games isn't as expansive as some people's, but I'm happy to hear what's so terrible about the Fallout character system. I've always liked it.

In addition to what Ninjerk said the attributes are laughably unbalance (no reason to ever have 10 con or str, while you want agi pumped as high as possible, every character benefits from high int, etc).

There's also a lot of complexity that doesn't actually do anything. Take a look at the equations to make the initial skill values and realize that's all meaningless by level ~4 or so when you've just put points directly into raising the skills you want.

 

[tuluse]

A strength increase in D&D felt noticeable on a melee character. In POE it just feels insignificant.

On POE my 21 might barbarian never felt significantly more powerful than any other character, whereas in D&D a high strength character would hit really damn hard.

It just feels insignificant? That's a pretty meaningless statement. Maybe you just can't find the combat log because they stupidly put it over to the right

The numbers don't lie, though, despite what your feels are telling you. A character with 21 might does significantly more damage than a character with 10 might. You can read all about it in the combat log or witness it as your enemies fall faster, so I'm not sure what to tell you except that your feelings have betrayed you

Maybe I worded that poorly, I was thinking more 21 might character vs one with 16, the difference isn't huge. Whereas with strength in D&D, the difference between say 14 and 19 would be far more significant in combat.

Some may prefer the attributes having less effect, personally I would have doubled the damage bonus on might. Though I also would have made might purely for melee/physical damage and not spell damage.

Keep in mind, you can't flatly say "D&D" here. AD&D 2E is quite different from 3E. In 2E there is a sizable difference *within* 18 str. While increasing from 16 to 19 in 3E means +1 to hit and dam, or +2 for 14-19.

 

[Tacgnol]

A strength increase in D&D felt noticeable on a melee character. In POE it just feels insignificant.

On POE my 21 might barbarian never felt significantly more powerful than any other character, whereas in D&D a high strength character would hit really damn hard.

It just feels insignificant? That's a pretty meaningless statement. Maybe you just can't find the combat log because they stupidly put it over to the right

The numbers don't lie, though, despite what your feels are telling you. A character with 21 might does significantly more damage than a character with 10 might. You can read all about it in the combat log or witness it as your enemies fall faster, so I'm not sure what to tell you except that your feelings have betrayed you

Maybe I worded that poorly, I was thinking more 21 might character vs one with 16, the difference isn't huge. Whereas with strength in D&D, the difference between say 14 and 19 would be far more significant in combat.

Some may prefer the attributes having less effect, personally I would have doubled the damage bonus on might. Though I also would have made might purely for melee/physical damage and not spell damage.

Keep in mind, you can't flatly say "D&D" here. AD&D 2E is quite different from 3E. In 2E there is a sizable difference *within* 18 str. While increasing from 16 to 19 in 3E means +1 to hit and dam, or +2 for 14-19.

That's true, I was more thinking AD&D2. Especially with how much POE is "inspired" by IE engine games.

 

[Grinning Reaper]

Pretty sure there's a few options that are so far-and-away better than everything else it doesn't make any sense not to take them (e.g. Gifted, not sure if there are others). The combat system in Fallout is also much-maligned for various reasons (fairly, I'd say).

Fair enough, I guess that I don't mind those inferior traits though because of the fact that it's so blatantly obvious that they're inferior. I never wondered if I should take gifted and small frame when I first played Fallout, it was pretty obvious that those were good choices. And the less useful choices are obvious as well. And there are no universally completely useless stats, even if there are other choices within the character system that can be considered useless. Maybe I'm a bit biased because the system always made sense to me from the first time I encountered it. There's no bs like in the IE games where the game suggests (and the manual explicitly states) that a stat will do one thing and then it simply doesn't. Again, dropping stats down super low in Fallout also has an actual effect, even if some stats are better than others in most cases.

In addition to what Ninjerk said the attributes are laughably unbalance (no reason to ever have 10 con or str, while you want agi pumped as high as possible, every character benefits from high int, etc).

There's also a lot of complexity that doesn't actually do anything. Take a look at the equations to make the initial skill values and realize that's all meaningless by level ~4 or so when you've just put points directly into raising the skills you want.

Also true. Yeah, I guess my comment there was partially driven by how much subjective fun I have with the system and that I'm apparently inclined to ignore its flaws. Still, a large share of my gaming throughout the years has been playing (and replaying) the first two Fallouts and the IE games, so it stands out as superior to me because of what I have compared it to in my mind.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Can I be filled in? Would he tell me I'm a retard for liking the system?

I guess my knowledge of games isn't as expansive as some people's, but I'm happy to hear what's so terrible about the Fallout character system. I've always liked it.

In addition to what Ninjerk said the attributes are laughably unbalance (no reason to ever have 10 con or str, while you want agi pumped as high as possible, every character benefits from high int, etc).

There's also a lot of complexity that doesn't actually do anything. Take a look at the equations to make the initial skill values and realize that's all meaningless by level ~4 or so when you've just put points directly into raising the skills you want.

Not to mention that skill use in itself is entirely borked. Without save-scumming, you can lockpick the vast majority of locked containers (jams pass in a day or so and time is virtually meaningless) without investing in lockpicking, heal every possible crippled limb without investing in doctor (failures don't count towards exhaustion, while even exhaustion is meaningless in the grand scope of things), etc.

 

[tuluse]

That's true, I was more thinking AD&D2. Especially with how much POE is "inspired" by IE engine games.

IWD2 was 3E and IE

Also true. Yeah, I guess my comment there was partially driven by how much subjective fun I have with the system and that I'm apparently inclined to ignore its flaws. Still, a large share of my gaming throughout the years has been playing (and replaying) the first two Fallouts and the IE games, so it stands out as superior to me because of what I have compared it to in my mind.

Fallout remains my all time favorite cRPG. It's a wonderful game that allows players to do all kinds of things. SPECIAL isn't very good though, it just happens to be wrapped around a great game.

 

[Grinning Reaper]

Anyway, I take back what I said about Fallout's character system being so great. I was wrong. I've had a great deal of fun with it over the years for sure, but it could definitely be improved upon a lot. I guess I was suffering from a touch of fanboyism, because Fallout is possibly my favorite RPG.

 

[Athelas]

Maybe I worded that poorly, I was thinking more 21 might character vs one with 16, the difference isn't huge. Whereas with strength in D&D, the difference between say 14 and 19 would be far more significant in combat.

Some may prefer the attributes having less effect, personally I would have doubled the damage bonus on might. Though I also would have made might purely for melee/physical damage and not spell damage.

You're overlooking damage reduction. The difference between a 3 might and a 21 might character is about 50%, i.e. 10 vs 20 damage. However, when facing an enemy with 8 DR:

Character A will do (10-8)= 2 damage.
Character B will do (20-8)=12 damage, six times as much damage as character A.

This is not even taking into account grazes, which lower damage by 50% and make high might even more valuable in order to bypass DR and can make the differences even more pronounced.

Though obviously, this kind of system comes with its own set of issues.

 

[Ninjerk]

Anyway, I take back what I said about Fallout's character system being so great. I was wrong. I've had a great deal of fun with it over the years for sure, but it could definitely be improved upon a lot. I guess I was suffering from a touch of fanboyism, because Fallout is possibly my favorite RPG.

I think it's more accurate to say that Fallout's approach is great, and there certainly haven't been enough games that take a similar tack.

 

[imweasel]

Well, I don't have time to address all your points right now, though some are okay.

But I need to point out that +6 damage in D&D is massive, 3% is tiny. You're even admitting they only really do something noticeable if you min-max. In BG, 1 point of damage is worth a lot more than that; and so is a reduction of 1 on our THAC0.

Comparing a difference of 10-18 STR with a difference of 1 MIGHT in PoE.

10-18 in PoE is 24% damage. Is a quarter more damage tiny?

Yes, it is. It's hilariously tiny.

A strength increase in D&D felt noticeable on a melee character. In POE it just feels insignificant.

On POE my 21 might barbarian never felt significantly more powerful than any other character, whereas in D&D a high strength character would hit really damn hard.

An 18/xx ST fighter in BG does about 200 - 300% more damage than a 10 ST fighter. Going to 21 ST from there increases damage by another 200 - 300%. Yep, a 21 ST fighter is an absolute monster. A 25 ST fighter is a demi-god.

In Sawyerism a 21 MI fighter doesn't do much more damage than a weak ass 10 MI fighter. The difference is hilariously tiny.

 

[Ulrox]

I think it's more accurate to say that Fallout's approach is great, and there certainly haven't been enough games that take a similar tack.

Dont worry, Brian Fargo is sure to rectify that with a kickstarter after Bards tale.

 

[Average Manatee]

Pretty sure there's a few options that are so far-and-away better than everything else it doesn't make any sense not to take them (e.g. Gifted, not sure if there are others). The combat system in Fallout is also much-maligned for various reasons (fairly, I'd say).

Fair enough, I guess that I don't mind those inferior traits though because of the fact that it's so blatantly obvious that they're inferior. I never wondered if I should take gifted and small frame when I first played Fallout, it was pretty obvious that those were good choices. And the less useful choices are obvious as well. And there are no universally completely useless stats, even if there are other choices within the character system that can be considered useless. Maybe I'm a bit biased because the system always made sense to me from the first time I encountered it. There's no bs like in the IE games where the game suggests (and the manual explicitly states) that a stat will do one thing and then it simply doesn't. Again, dropping stats down super low in Fallout also has an actual effect, even if some stats are better than others in most cases.

CON is pretty much useless. By the mid game you're dying to 100 damage bursts to the face or 0 damage "you die instantly" crits, making having 10 HP more mostly irrelevant.

STR is useless beyond about 4 as soon as you get companions to carry stuff for you. Even lower if you don't care about aim penalties (which you easily outweigh with perception and skill boosts)

CHA is useless in F1.

All that allows you to go gifted and 10/10/10/9/4/2/2 in fallout 1. Small Frame makes that 10/10/10/10/4/2/2. On top of that basically all the weapon skills but small guns are mediocre to worse (except energy weapons, which is late game when you drown in skill points anyway), and half the other skills are equally bad (traps? repair? first aid? lol).

An 18/xx ST fighter in BG does about 200 - 300% more damage than a 10 ST fighter. Going to 21 ST from there increases damage by another 200 - 300%. Yep, a 21 ST fighter is an absolute monster. A 25 ST fighter is a demi-god.

In Sawyerism a 21 MI fighter doesn't do much more damage than a weak ass 10 MI fighter. The difference is hilariously tiny.

A bit of an overstatement, its more like 100-150% more damage even when counting in accuracy. But yeah, might just feels pathetic. In BG2 a 10 strength person can carry 70 (lbs, I presume). A 25 strength person can carry 1600! If Sawyer made BG2 he'd probably give 25 Might = 70 * 1.45 = 101.5 lbs or something.

Though to be fair, with the percentile system 25 strength = 30 might, but whatever.

Maybe I worded that poorly, I was thinking more 21 might character vs one with 16, the difference isn't huge. Whereas with strength in D&D, the difference between say 14 and 19 would be far more significant in combat.

Some may prefer the attributes having less effect, personally I would have doubled the damage bonus on might. Though I also would have made might purely for melee/physical damage and not spell damage.

You're overlooking damage reduction. The difference between a 3 might and a 21 might character is about 50%, i.e. 10 vs 20 damage. However, when facing an enemy with 8 DR:

Character A will do (10-8)= 2 damage.
Character B will do (20-8)=12 damage, six times as much damage as character A.

This is not even taking into account grazes, which lower damage by 50% and make high might even more valuable in order to bypass DR and can make the differences even more pronounced.

Though obviously, this kind of system comes with its own set of issues.

If you have to compare a might 3 character to a might 21 character to make a point then I think you are failing. This is like comparing a person who just woke up from a 6 month coma to an epic-level hero.

EDIT: And your math is off too. 3 might = 79% damage, 21 might = 133% damage. If the 21 might character had 20 base damage, the 3 might character will do 12. Even after your specified DR amount the difference is 4v12, only a 200% damage increase. Pathetic considering the ridiculous stat gap.

 

[Athelas]

If you have to compare a might 3 character to a might 21 character to make a point then I think you are failing. This is like comparing a person who just woke up from a 6 month coma to an epic-level hero.

I don't think 3 might in PoE is supposed to represent an infant's strength like it does in D&D, and even in AD&D the strength penalties were minuscule compared to the bonuses. Anyway, the D&D comparison made in this thread involved a 10 strength character, when you could easily roll a character with 18 in all relevant stats in the IE games. There is no reason not to max strength/might in either of these games - this is an academic debate more than anything else. I could've compared a 10 might and a 20 might character in PoE, and the difference would still be significant.

EDIT: And your math is off too. 3 might = 79% damage, 21 might = 133% damage. If the 21 might character had 20 base damage, the 3 might character will do 12. Even after your specified DR amount the difference is 4v12, only a 200% damage increase. Pathetic considering the ridiculous stat gap.

learnhow2math:

 

[Average Manatee]

EDIT: And your math is off too. 3 might = 79% damage, 21 might = 133% damage. If the 21 might character had 20 base damage, the 3 might character will do 12. Even after your specified DR amount the difference is 4v12, only a 200% damage increase. Pathetic considering the ridiculous stat gap.

learnhow2math:

3 might = 10 -7 might = 100% - (7*3) = 79% damage.
21 might = 10 + 11 might = 100% + (11*3) = 133% damage.
20/1.33 * .79 = 11.88 damage

Your math is wrong. If PoE is giving those numbers then it is modifying the +-3% per point rule or you have modified the situation in some way.

 

[Athelas]

3 might = 10 -7 might = 100% - (7*3) = 79% damage.
21 might = 10 + 11 might = 100% + (11*3) = 133% damage.
20/1.33 * .79 = 11.88 damage

Your math is wrong. If PoE is giving those numbers then it is modifying the +-3% per point rule or you have modified the situation in some way.

It's your math that makes no sense. I have no idea how you arrived at the numbers you did.

The comparison is between a 21 might aumaua and a 2 might orlan, by the way. I haven't modified anything.

 

[Average Manatee]

Might is a +-3% change in damage per point above or below 10. Hence 3 might is -7 from 10 might and is -21%, while 21 might is +11 and therefore +33%. The difference between 3 might and 21 might is about 50%, but that doesn't mean that 3 might is half damage of 21 might.

 

[Mangoose]

Holy shit, the writing is horrible.

A collection of crusty metaphors and similes, and weather-worn adjectives dumped upon the earth by the gods long ago, pillars built to withstand eternity.

 

[Tacgnol]

Holy shit, the writing is horrible.

Talk about metaphor, simile, and adjective dump.

Yep, expected much better from Obsidian. It seems like their best writers had hardly any involvement with the game.

 

[ST'Ranger]

Holy shit, the writing is horrible.

A collection of crusty metaphors and similes, and weather-worn adjectives dumped upon the earth by the gods long ago, pillars built to withstand eternity.

This was the worst part to me. Obsidian just toying with my expectations and feelings.

 

[Copper]

Holy shit, the writing is horrible.

A collection of crusty metaphors and similes, and weather-worn adjectives dumped upon the earth by the gods long ago, pillars built to withstand eternity.

Called it on the first intro demo, mostly tuned out during play, skim-reading the scripted sequences and skipping the descriptive text in dialog (Except Grieving Mother, where it mostly works and there is a noticeable incline... if fond of abusing the ol' ellipses).

 

[DeepOcean]

Holy shit, the writing is horrible.

A collection of crusty metaphors and similes, and weather-worn adjectives dumped upon the earth by the gods long ago, pillars built to withstand eternity.

Yep, after some point the amount of pretentiousness and pseudo philosophical nonsens at the end made me feel nostalgic for ole Sarevok.

 

[Mareus]

Agree about the often unnecessary adjective dump, but in gaming I connect writing to more than just how well written the sentences are. I also connect it to characterization, skill checks in dialogues, linearity, etc.

 

[Mangoose]

Agree about the often unnecessary adjective dump, but in gaming I connect writing to more than just how well written the sentences are. I also connect it to characterization, skill checks in dialogues, linearity, etc.

I agree with that also. Gameplay via dialogue (that is what I consider things like skill checks and linearity/C&C) is very important.

---

I guess I'm nitpicking based on just book reading. Can't say I've read the best books, but I do notice good writing... "Show, not tell" is important, but "over-showing" limits the reader's mind's opportunity to paint its own picture (almost like the author "telling" too much in a different manner). I guess I mean that "show, not tell" doesn't mean literally not to "tell," but it means to use the method of implying details and let the reader "fill in" the gaps in details. And I guess this why they say "a picture is a 1000 words." You want room for the audience to think and interpret. A sense of mystery, if you will.

It also disturbs pacing a lot. My father does this a lot when writing his own... uh... well anything.

Now it is definitely difficult to write like that, as it is all about balance. Nor at all do I say I can. But if you read good writings - Hell, even the Gettysburg Address - you should be able to notice a gap between that... I dunno, rhythmic and grabbing choice of words, phrasing, pacing, and the like. And if a writer takes the time and sets down his ego to notice such writing versus his own writing, then, well, I don't think we would get the quality of PoE writing.

I mean Salvatore writes better. I don't mean his Mary-Sueism and general storyline, but I mean the way he depicts specific scenes. I've enjoy his fight scenes, where the reader (me, at least) can just see what's going on. And that requires not telling, as that doesn't help at all with putting the animation in the reader's mind. And it requires good pacing, as that is what keeps the action moving in the mind - and good pacing means not too much showing because the reader can fill in the detail gaps much much faster. An analogy would be a shitty movie with good, well-shot fight scenes.

---

Though I guess we all already know this and again I'm just being pedantic. And I totally digressed, as the main point of my reply is to agree with you that gameplay in writing is very important.