I think that's a sign of a well-balanced game.

@BESW Yeah, I've noticed the same thing. It's definitely a game where most things can work.

@BESW That seems pretty fair - I can't think of a class that is noticeably weaker or stronger than others. Although there are definitely varying levels of "how vital it is to have one in the party".

What would you say are must-haves?

Having played parties both with and without a Priest, I wouldn't willingly play without a Priest again.

← 6 messages moved from RPG General Chat

Other than that, I usually have a Ranger for auto-detection, but that's merely a convenience.

what do they detect?

Hidden items, mostly.

Some of which are pretty important.

So if you don't have one, you have to either move slowly all the time or know where important stuff is. Or miss out on it.

ah

Oh, one other thing - having a strategy for locks makes the game a lot easier, too.

It doesn't really matter what that strategy is, though.

what locks are those?

Locks on doors?

ah ok

see, I wasn't sure if warlocks showed up or what

locks on doors make sense too

Oh yeah, I can see how that could be confusing, especially with the way I phrased it.

I do find the party composition process in that game much more interesting than most, because you have to think about party formation as well as everything else.

So I almost always end up with 2 pure spellcasters, because I like spellcasters a lot, but if I had more than 2 I wouldn't be able to protect them from all sides.

How do you feel about bishops?

@BESW I know a lot of people really like them, but I found that to be effective, you have to specialise them to the point where you're effectively playing one of the other spellcasters anyway.

So rather than 2 bishops, one focusing on divine magic and one on arcane (or similar), I'll just go with a Priest and a Mage.

Some folks say that Bishops are stronger in late-game than either of those classes.

@BESW I've no doubt that's true.

One thing I meant to try a long time ago but never got around to was focusing bishops on the elements rather than the schools of magic. So rather than a Divine Bishop who maxes Divinity and splits points between Fire, Water, and so on, a Fire Bishop who maxes Fire and splits points between Divinity, Wizardry, and so on.

I have no idea whether it would end up better or worse, though.

Heh.

@BESW It's questionable what "late-game" means in W8, too. For example, a Samurai is objectively better in "late-game" than a Mage, because it can do everything a Mage can do, plus SWORDS, but I found [the amount of grinding it takes to make a Samurai as effective at spellcasting as a Mage becomes organically through just playing the game] completely intolerable.

Wow, that last sentence parses badly.

I made a team and after about two maps started remembering things I'd forgotten, and had made some poor leveling choices.

So I'm rebuilding.

Ah, nice. What poor choices? Also, by two maps you mean like the Lower and Upper Monasteries?

I think so.

Poor choices like taking damage instead of debuff spells.

Interesting, I would've said it goes something like buff/utility spells > damage spells > debuffs. But then, I've long suspected that I'm not actually very good at the game :)

Side note: opaque game engines make things unnecessarily difficult.

Well, yeah. I mean for the casters who don't really have utility/buff at lower levels.

@Miniman ....yes.

@BESW Like, I know the buff spells are good, because I've tried them and been amazed by how much difference they make. But I don't really know why they're good.

@BESW So what sort of party do you have/are making?

Okay, so. Dracon Samurai is a must, because Trogdor.

Nice, samurai is my favourite class.

I know Dracon isn't exactly ideal (their low SEN cripples their crit rate) but it's a thematic thing.

Also a lizardman is kinda important, again because Troggy.

It's pretty workable - crit doesn't become a really big deal until quite late, and the skill becomes more important than the stat at that point.

At least, I think it does - see previous comments on opaque game engine.

First party was dracon samurai, elf mage, faerie monk, rawulf priest, lizardman bard, mook ranger.

But, among other things, I goofed by making the bard male.

Ah, ouch.

I think ranger/priest/mage is a good set.

So: samurai, ranger, priest, mage, X, X.

Yeah, it seems like a pretty solid party overall.

I've never really used Monks - their spellcasting is Psionic, right?

I want someone who knows alchemy.

Yeah, they're psionic.

And then the Ranger has alchemy, so you cover all 4 types - that's pretty nice.

Plus Bard ends up with a bit of everything.

Wait, rangers have alchemy? It's not on the chargen screen list.

And I'm thinking about switching out the bard for a gadgeteer.

@BESW Like the Monk, they only get it later. Level 5, I think?

Ah.

I do remember the bard being a major load in late game.

It's true, the instruments don't really hold up in lategame.

The gadgeteer is great for locks, traps, and the awesomeness of the Omnigun.

But I'm not very thrilled by the fiddly item management part of gadgeteering.

Yeah, I was about to say that I mostly ignored that part.

Who can pick pockets?

I think that's Rogue-exclusive.

Don't quote me on that though.

You can pick up Myles if you're ok with NPCs who leave all the time. At least he's available pretty early.

I intend to use Myles and then dump him.

Whiny selfish brat.

If Vi weren't so awesome I'd be definitely putting a valk in the party.

Bards can pick pockets too.

@BESW Ah, right.

So I need a rogue or a bard.

@BESW Well, not need necessarily.

...Fair enough.

@BESW They're definitely one of the better classes, although I have to say that I don't like Vi much.

She had an annoying voice actress, but she went almost everywhere.

@BESW I just found it's one thing where the consequences of failure outweigh the benefits of success.

Samurai, Ranger, Mage, Priest... aw, heck, I'll treat myself to a Valkyrie... and--one last thing. What'd round out that party?

@BESW Yeah, beaten only by R-66.

@BESW I'd probably go for a straight up Rogue - it covers all the skills you need and lategame they're combat monsters.

Great!

Alright, nitty-gritty time.

Mage: Elf: She's going for Int/Pie first, and focusing on fire/water.

Solid. Divine, Earth, and Air all have great buffs, so they'll catch up later anyway.

Samurai: Dracon: Speed and Dex, and the obvious skills.

The others I'm less solid on.

Ranger: Mook?

Ideally, yeah.

Dex and Sen as primaries.

Not Dex/Str?

@BESW Like the Samurai, Str is a flat boost to your damage. It's definitely worth getting at some point, it's up to you when you get what.

Right, okay. It's the cap goal thingy.

Priest: Rawulf?

Probably best.

Important disclaimer: Lategame, if you want offensive spells to do anything, you need 100 Int for Power Cast. Which sucks for a Priest.

Ouch.

So, Pie/Spd, then start on Int?

Spd is...tricky. Either dump it or max it, so you know exactly when the Priest will go.

I'm a firm believer in "the healer should go first."

@BESW why's that?

@doppelgreener Heal low health people before they get killed.

Plus you don't have to guess who's going to get hurt.

@doppelgreener Because if you play Wiz8 in phased instead of continuous mode (as I do), then at the top of every round you determine what each of your characters will do, and then they do it in initiative order, with the enemies taking turns at THEIR initiatives.

Oh, okay. So the priest goes first to heal everyone up.

So if Pzam the elf mage is hurting, you don't want to let all the enemies get their turns again before you heal her.

(And at the first round, the priest gets to buff folks before they act so they can use the buffs.)

I guess in the very first round of combat, someone might already be hurt (monsters went first) and otherwise you have buffs.

Yeah, in some ways it's a lot easier to just dump Int. On the other hand, we have..."MASS INSTANT DEATH!!!"

Alrighty, @Miniman, can either a rogue or a valk be a lizardman without getting laughed to death?

@BESW You can easily get away with a lizardman valk.

Let it be done.

Divine spellcasting is piety-based, not int, so it's not a big drawback for them.

Plus with a Priest in the party, the valk spellcasting is "nice to have as a backup", rather than "really really important".

So, str/dex/spd/pie for her?

@BESW Yeah, fighter-type classes have it rough in Wiz8. I'd focus on Str first, the Valk fighting style is pretty reliable, so it pays off getting it to good damage.

....I seem to have hit a bug.

Oh?

I made a character that's not showing up in the list of available characters.

But when I re-make it, I'm told someone of that name already exists.

That's definitely odd.

Okay, moving to the rogue.

Maybe adding another PC to the list will jog it.

What's a good race for a rogue?

Hobbit is the best stat-wise, I think.

What about Felpurr?

That works too.

They get almost as many points, but start a little higher in what matters.

...although Hobbits have more Vitality...

Basically, you want Str/Dex/Spd to be good at fighting, and Int/Sen to be good at skills.

Everyone in Wiz8 is just super-MAD.

[sigh]

Personally, I'd be inclined to neglect stats that improve skills - the skills themselves will do the heavy lifting.

And now I have two mysteriously missing characters.

Restarting.

There they are!

Hooray!

....what would you say about a fairy priest?

@BESW eeeeexceleeent

@trogdor For you!

@BESW I kinda assumed as much

so I heard that for the most part female characters are just better, mostly because of magic items only they can use?

seems slightly strange

It's a bit weird, yes.

@BESW Faeries are theoretically the best mages, but I don't like them because of their low Piety and overall squishiness. Both of these are minor problems for a mage, but huge problems for a priest.

Gotcha.

Okay: Pzam the elf mage, Skales the dracon samurai, Hawk the mook ranger, Lilly the rawulf priest, Clonga the lizardman valkyrie, and Gordian the felpurr rogue, are ready to adventure.

Thank you.

XD

@BESW You're welcome! I enjoy talking about this stuff, thanks for giving me the excuse!

It's kind of odd; this was the first RPG I ever played, and I had no idea what the genre's history was.

I am just waiting for people to ask for BoF 3 advice XD

@BESW That's actually pretty much true for me, too.

Unless you count Pokemon as an RPG, which is a debated point.

@BESW Has the character who mysteriously disappeared returned?

Oh right I see now

They returned from the cracks between dimensions. Hooray!

yeah, that is a weird bug

I am glad it went away relatively easily

@trogdor It's really just one item, btw. The Necklace of Stamina Regeneration is absolutely vital for classes that make heavy use of stamina, and it's exclusive to females.

oh I see, the guys are too insecure in their masculinity to wear that :P

There's also a quest that you need a male for.

@BESW Oh yeah, good point!

go figure I guess

at least they incentivised you to have at least one of each of both gender choices

There are also 2 gender exclusive classes, but they're both Fighter/Priest hybrids, and the Valkyrie is vastly superior in every way to the Lord.

lol

win some lose some I guess

Working out which is which is an exercise for the reader.

it would have been much more interesting if they were equally powerful classes but just did different things

I'm sure that was the theory.

yeah same

can't blame them too much for trying and just not nailing the execution

@trogdor Essentially, the Lord is designed to use the worst fighting style in the game (dual-wielding), where the Valkyrie is designed to wield a single polearm, which is simple, reliable, and effective.

And the Lord gets continual health regen, which is kinda cool, but the Valkyrie gets a chance to come back every time she dies, which is incredible.

yeah,that sounds like they were really just trying to differentiate them

Oh yeah, that reminds me.

@Miniman ok see, I love health regen, but rezing when you die is clearly superior XD

@BESW One minor issue with your party - spellcasters in the centre, Ranger at the back, Samurai at the front, Valk on one flank all works fine, but your Rogue will sometimes have nothing to hit at the side.

The Valk gets around it with polearm reach (so she can hit enemies at the front anyway), but the Rogue doesn't have that advantage.

I can juggle 'em.

And back into walls.

Well, you'd have done that last anyway.

@Miniman I guess the rogue will throw stuff sometimes.

@BESW That works too. You can also tilt the party so that it's facing a little more to the Rogue's side every time you get into a fight, but that's a bit of a pain.

I suspect this is where bishops come into their own.

@BESW Huh?

Well, you can make a priest tankyish. Bishops probably a lot moreso.

At least enough so they can handle a... side job. [ba-dum tish]

[groan] Personally, my healer will always be as well protected as I can make them.

Is there a change to the group composition you'd suggest?

Or just tell the rogue "deal with it"?

@BESW Not really. I always have difficulty with the sides.

I've tried putting the casters in the back, then having the fighters spread across the centre and the 2 sides, which is great for letting the fighters all reach the enemies but not so great for protecting the casters.

Even if you always manage to get your back to a wall, enemies can hit through the front line.

Although I don't know why that doesn't happen with standard formation anyway.

Maybe I just noticed it more.

Well, using your sides as an extra set of fronts also invites unnecessary flanking bonuses, because the side characters start facing... sideways...

...so attacks from the front surprise them in the first round of every combat.

Wait, flanking bonuses? See previous comment on opaque game engine.

Apparently facing matters.

I had no idea that was a thing, interesting.

If you look at the group-position roundel, it shows facing.

Wrote up my own botch from the latest game.

We need a way to signify which posts are ready to be published, and which are still being worked on. Submit for review if you're done?

That's what I've been doing.

Cool. How many posts do you think we need to roll out?

Two to five?

But I'm not exactly a social media expert or anything.

@Magician I was thinking of 6-9. Two-three published, two-three ready to be published, two-three as WIP.

@BESW @Magician Is Capitalising Titles Like That Appropriate For Blog Posts?

People do it sometimes. I'm generally over it.

I think we should choose a scheme as stick with it

inconsistency is a feature of flesh and flesh is weak

This title is capitalised. - good

This Title Is Really Capitalised - OK I guess?

Are you suggesting we develop a style guide, and nominate an editor to make sure everything adheres? :)

This Title is Derp Capitalised - please don't

Yes, and I'm nominating you.

I mean, there should be at least some coherence, right?

I'm not much for editing after people, but whipping them and withholding the "publish" button option is A-OK to me

I disagree, actually.

This is explicitly a blog that we want lots of different people to submit to.

I've actually been briefly thinking about having an... e-magazine, for lack of a better word. Because "botches" is a good topic, but a finite one, in a finite group of writers. But it's a great topic for an "issue". But then I came to my senses.

I think it'd be better to adhere to a Stack-like policy of internal consistency per post.

But then we are BuzzFeed

17 Reasons Why Your Blog Should Have Variable Quality. number 9 will blow your mind

Don't confuse consistent style with consistent quality.

So you're essentially saying adhering to a common style is not an element of thoughtful publishing?

....no....

I mean, I'm not too bothered either way, I just think it would be nice to have a common style. And whipping people is cool.

I'm saying that it's not a universal requirement, and that in this case it's liable to be a bugbear that scares away quality contributions by imposing an artificial barrier.

I think that while it's easier to force adherence to a style guide, for projects like this one it's better to have quality in a variety of styles.

That's fair enough.

But still, can we perhaps informally agree on title style?

Sure. There are three basic styles.

Title caps, first letter caps, and sentence caps.

I've been titling my posts in a conceit that's better lent to title caps, but I'm okay with either title or sentence caps. First letter caps can suck a lemon with hot sauce.

Well, there's also Capitalising only words that We Want.

@BESW Er. First letter caps?

@eimyr LOl sO rANdOm

PoKeMoN

@Magician That's Where You Capitalise Every First Letter Whether It's A Prep Or Article Or Whatever.

I prefer normal sentence capitalisation, myself.

+1

Speaking of normalized style, do we want to use the --more-- cut? I don't think it's particularly necessary given relatively short pieces we have so far.

I'm not too bothered either way. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't

This I do know: generally in modern blogging it's better to avoid using the "more" cut just for length.

The "more" cut in modern blogging is more for things like "I'm blogging a spoiler, or a picture of a spider, or a lot of gifs."

another one drafted