Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
 |
|
 |
|
Dungeons & Dragons Online: Eberron Unlimited - Planet Dark Ages
I'm not sure how many of you have been following this game over the last years, but it's come a long way.
Even better, now it's free to play!
Of course, F2P games usually have limitations and such, some that are so annoying and disheartening that you don't want to play to begin with or past a week if that.
Understandable, so what are the limits here?
The amount of work you want to put into it.
All of the paid content is stuff like additional character slots, bank slots, and other convenience items.
You can 'unlock' new zones to hunt in that have better quests and experience with shop points too.
The neat part is, you can earn shop points by playing normally so you can work your way to unlocking those same places for free if you work hard enough.
Pretty much, if you want to play for free, you'll have to work hard.
But the good part is, you won't be at a real loss.
Also, it offers flexibility so if you decide to pay for some places for a few dollars, you don't have to pay a monthly fee on top of that or anything.
You can also decide maybe for a few months to take a break and play for free.
Not to mention, you don't have to buy the game so you're saving a good $30-50 right up front compared to most.
Finally, once you buy a shop point package, you become Premium member status permanently, which gives you benefits without having to pay VIP monthly fees.
A lot of people play this game as their secondary MMO since they don't feel like paying for two at the same time.
As for the game content, it's quite amazing and fun.
The graphics engine is a lot like Age of Conan.
Yes, that's right, the graphics are that good in a game that's F2P.
All in all, the game reminds me of a mashup of Baldur's Gate mechanics wrapped up in a Dungeon Siege flow along with the graphics of Age of Conan.
To me, that's a hit right there.
The game flows a lot like the pen and paper too, you have narration by the dungeon master (DM) and earn experience solely by quests (monsters don't give experience).
You can customize your character class quite a lot so it's not cookie cutter like most games (and more like Baldur's Gate like I mentioned).
The level cap is 20, but it takes a while to gain a single level.
The quests are fun, very repeatable, and have varying difficulty levels for better loot.
Everyone is always trying to group and seem helpful and nice, which is always a plus.
I'm fairly new to the game, my cousin who is an avid D&D player both pen and paper and now this, has been explaining a lot to me.
Being familiar with Baldur's gate and a lot of other D&D inspired games has made it easy to get the hang of.
I like the game a lot and I'd say any of you looking for a good time waster, check this game out.
It's crazy how much fun you can have.
I play on the Argonnessen server, which seems to be the highest population server.
As for now, I'm kind of rerolling with several classes and trying to figure out which I like the most and which skillset I'm using (Bow Cleric was a fail early on, perhaps gets better?), so I don't have a dedicated character name yet.
Anyhow, enough of me talking, come check it out!
Dungeons and Dragons Online The best place to start is the FAQ section.
:)
I hope this thread can become sticky and provide a way for everyone on the forums to find each other in game, give advice and assistance, and whatnot!
This post has been edited by SiLo : Sep 10 2009, 07:00 PM
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
I remember downloading and trying the trial of this 2 years ago, and this PC can barely run it at 10 FPS (which is unplayable, to me).
I'll check it out next month, if it's anything like Baldur's Gate (PC, not that PS2 crap) like you say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surprising it ran that bad, maybe they've improved upon it since then.
Right now, I'm running it on pretty much a "super netbook" (Intel Atom N330, nVidia ION, 4GB RAM, Win7 x64).
It does support DX10.
Yes, I only refer to Baldur's Gate in the PC way, the console versions are..
Awful in comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I try to confirm when people talk about BG.
Baldur's Gate was simply slapped onto Dark Alliance because the didn't have the rights to make a D&D game, but did have rights under a Baldur's Gate guise.
Anyway, they were trash, I agree -- Diablo 1 PSX version is more fun than that garbage.
Also, the reason it ran terribly is because this PC is crap.
512 MB RAM, GeForce 5200.
Meh.
Laptop is fried, which would have been able to run DDO.
Laptop is being replaced since I finally found the warranty.
Plus I'll probably have an upgraded PC by the end of the month, depending on how much work I get.
I'll check this out more then.
I'm assuming DDO uses 4th Edition rules.
Which means no Bard class, which means I'll already be going in with a snarl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have this game, give me server names damnit!
This post has been edited by meizo : Sep 10 2009, 08:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Well, I try to confirm when people talk about BG.
Baldur's Gate was simply slapped onto Dark Alliance because the didn't have the rights to make a D&D game, but did have rights under a Baldur's Gate guise.
Anyway, they were trash, I agree -- Diablo 1 PSX version is more fun than that garbage.
Also, the reason it ran terribly is because this PC is crap.
512 MB RAM, GeForce 5200.
Meh.
Laptop is fried, which would have been able to run DDO.
Laptop is being replaced since I finally found the warranty.
Plus I'll probably have an upgraded PC by the end of the month, depending on how much work I get.
I'll check this out more then.
I'm assuming DDO uses 4th Edition rules.
Which means no Bard class, which means I'll already be going in with a snarl.
Using most of 3.5 with SOME (very few) 4.0 elements.
There are Bards, I was debating on rolling one.
Rolled a Ranger instead.
Quote: I have this game, give me server names damnit!
Azo, just made him on Argonnessen.
Level 1 rocking the Crypts!
:D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I'm assuming DDO uses 4th Edition rules.
Which means no Bard class, which means I'll already be going in with a snarl.
Fear not, my pet.
Simply purchase the PHB2, and you can has bard in 4.0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorta nice, I suppose (I already had the PHB before phb2, so moar money)
Trying to watch this chap stream a live D&D4e game, but for some reason I can never connect to his stream channel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So far I am enjoying Wizard the best, and I don't understand why.
I used to hate playing one in D&D.
Rogues are a lot of fun too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no.. :( I'm going to have to check this out!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fantastic campaign setting.
I loved the pen/paper game.
The Warforged were an interesting character concept: a construct with "a soul"/mind of it's own.
Halfings in that setting were not the chubby, pot smoking bums they were in most D&D settings, they were a proud(though somewhat "overly aggressive") tribal race.
Even the ones that took up the "City Life" still had a strong sense of self.
Half-elves weren't social outcasts as in most games.
Drow, while 'evil', were nothing like their Chaotic Evil Forgotten Realms counterparts.
Same with the Goblinoid Races who, while still territorial/aggressive, were not out to destroy everyone and everything they come into contact with.
Elves came from one of three different societies: Ones who came from an area that was throbbing with Necromantic Forces and who worshipped/answered to their Undead Ancestors(note: This does/did not make them in any way "evil" despite the Necromatic theme), Tribal/Desert dwelling ones with a strong sense of honor and family, or the "High Society" ones who had the typical snotty/snooty attitude.
Dwarves though were pretty stereotypical, same kinda for gnomes.
"Quori" were extraplanar beings(in a sense) who came from the Dreamplane known as "Dal Quor" and exist in human hosts who are known by their followers as the Inspired.
These are all utterly evil/"demonic" although there's an offshoot(player characters) of them that called themselves the Kalashtar.
They're like "rebels" who reject the ideals/philosophy of their brethren and fled their homeworld to avoid persecution/destruction for their beliefs.
I'm assuming they'll let you play the Kalashtar which would make an interesting class since almost all of them are psions(or atleast have some raw level of psi power)
Once I get my new laptop I'll be trying this out.
Most likely going to play a Drow if they allow it or maybe a dwarf or warforged.
Hoping they allow Changelings since, next to warforged, was my favorite race.
Edit: Got to looking around and found this little gem:
Eberron Wiki(everything you need to know about the Eberron Campaign setting!)
This post has been edited by ~Roane~ : Sep 11 2009, 06:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is SO going to be a WoW beater.
You can get wings and fly and everything!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I remember downloading and trying the trial of this 2 years ago, and this PC can barely run it at 10 FPS (which is unplayable, to me).
I'll check it out next month, if it's anything like Baldur's Gate (PC, not that PS2 crap) like you say.
LF Donations for Akuhei: new computersauce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kauvara on Sarlona, Drow Cleric.
This post has been edited by Sajikis : Sep 11 2009, 03:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Azo, just made him on Argonnessen.
Level 1 rocking the Crypts!
:D
I'll start up on Argonnessen.
Everyone else have objections to making a PDA group on that server?
This post has been edited by Andy : Sep 11 2009, 07:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm game. But it'll have to wait till I get my new laptop.
I'll most likely play a tank type character(like Warforged) or a buffer type(cleric or something).
Usually I prefer being the healer/buffer or some type of caster.
Tanking and/or bashing sh*t has always been something I find extremely boring.
But between those two, tanking is more what I lean towards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm wondering if Fighters and Clerics are still stupidly overpowered.
Fighters are superior to any fighter-like class.
Because, for example, you want an Archer.
A warrior always made a better archer than a ranger, since you got all those bonus feats to pimp out your bow abilities, plus they have a superior Base Attack Bonus.
2 weapon fighting?
Again, a Fighter gets a new feat every few levels, and for 2 weapon fighting that's important.
You want at bare minimum 2 weapon fighting, 2 weapon blocking, Improved Dual Wield, and optional Oversized 2 weapon fighting.
In other words, use a long sword in both hands with almost no penalty.
A fighter can accomplish this much faster than a Ranger.
Too bad you can't cast healing spells like crap and get a worthless pet.
Clerics have always been known as Overpowered in D&D, but they're necessary.
They get an insane amount of HP for healers, buff spells like crazy, and you can never have too many of them.
I used to love playing them, but got bored how invincible I was.
It kind of took the fun out of it.
This post has been edited by Andy : Sep 11 2009, 08:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Fighters are superior to any fighter-like class.
Because, for example, you want an Archer.
A warrior always made a better archer than a ranger, since you got all those bonus feats to pimp out your bow abilities, plus they have a superior Base Attack Bonus.
2 weapon fighting?
Again, a Fighter gets a new feat every few levels, and for 2 weapon fighting that's important.
You want at bare minimum 2 weapon fighting, 2 weapon blocking, Improved Dual Wield, and optional Oversized 2 weapon fighting.
In other words, use a long sword in both hands with almost no penalty.
A fighter can accomplish this much faster than a Ranger.
Too bad you can't cast healing spells like crap and get a worthless pet.
Clerics have always been known as Overpowered in D&D, but they're necessary.
They get an insane amount of HP for healers, buff spells like crazy, and you can never have too many of them.
I used to love playing them, but got bored how invincible I was.
It kind of took the fun out of it.
I havn't posted in ages, but I felt obligated to defend my poor ranger of old :P
A ranger's strength came more from it's favored enemies, and it's pet.
Not the pet itself per-se, but rather the bonuses they could grant.
And your build for fighters is rather...
Inefficient. Oversized 2 weapon fighting only manages to raise your maximum damage by 4 points, 8 if you used bastard swords.
By the time you reach level 6 or 8, an extra 4 damage isn't going to mean much.
2 weapon blocking aswell, it really would be spent better on going for cleave/great cleave, which would require power attack, aswell.
When you take these factors in, and accounting that rangers recieve all their 2 weapon fighting skills as bonuses, fighters and rangers really achieve the same level of melee proficiency around the same time, however rangers generally produce a higher attack bonus due to favored enemy.
On the plus side for fighters, they're proficient with heavy armor, which is definitely a point against rangers, since they require light armor to use their bonus feats.
Also too, monks always eclipse fighters from about level 4 on.
Stat-wise they achieve the greatest AC bonus, have the most attacks with flurry of blows, have many immunities to poisons/diseases/etc.
They're also the most economical class, requiring very little equipment, which allowed them to take oaths (which really put them over the top).
Paladins have probably the highest damage output out of all melee classes in dnd, with smite evil/infidel.
By level 6 with their new mounts, charge, smite evil, and a some well allocated feats, could easily put out 40-80 damage.
That's enough to kill most bbeg's in one blow.
All in all, fighters are honestly meant for large spiked chain, enlarge, oversized weapon fighting, and whirlwind.
They effectively become a blender :)
Anyway, as far as DDO is concerned, it's a great game.
The tutorial area was fantastic, right from the beginning with the snow falling on a tropical beach.
The game's graphics are amazing compared to most other mmo's out there.
The environments are highly interactive.
The story is extremely immerse, as would be expected.
And it really provides the feel of the table top experience.
It's based on 3.5ed, which will be familiar to most players, seeing as how Fallout 3, KOTOR, NWN 2 all used this system, or similar.
Baldur's gate was actually based from 2nd ED, but it's really not THAT much of a leap to 3.5.
What impresses me most about DDO is it's interception system.
You can say, have a fighter block with his tower shield in a door-way, while your ranger/sorcerer bombards enemies in front of the fighter with their attacks, and those enemies will actually have to overcome the fighter to get passed the door way and get at the other party members.
It allows for some fairly in-depth tactics, that you don't see in a lot of mmo's.
Also too, the way exp is awarded in this game really removes the grinding aspect as far as I've found (I've got a level 8 paladin).
It's almost entirely non-existant.
Better experienced than described.
One last thing, it uses an mp system instead of spells per day, because of the more frequent encounters.
It's really well done.
This also means that clerics, since it's an ABS and not such a time sink on the table top, can buff their allies aswell as themselves, so they aren't so over powered since most of your teammates will receive the same benefits.
Not much to describe other than that.
One more last thing XD.
Since the gaps between levels are actually so long, you actually achieve 5 ranks between every level, that allow you to go to skill trainers to award you extra feat-like bonuses to help you feel like you're making progress.
The bonuses vary from +BAB, +% to healing/recovery, +energy protections, and all that other good stuff.
Also well done, and again, better experienced than described.
:)
tl;dr
ANDY SUX, DDO IS FUNTASTICAlLY FAWESOME!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: A ranger's strength came more from it's favored enemies, and it's pet.
Not the pet itself per-se, but rather the bonuses they could grant.
And your build for fighters is rather...
Inefficient. Oversized 2 weapon fighting only manages to raise your maximum damage by 4 points, 8 if you used bastard swords.
By the time you reach level 6 or 8, an extra 4 damage isn't going to mean much.
2 weapon blocking aswell, it really would be spent better on going for cleave/great cleave, which would require power attack, aswell.
When you take these factors in, and accounting that rangers recieve all their 2 weapon fighting skills as bonuses, fighters and rangers really achieve the same level of melee proficiency around the same time, however rangers generally produce a higher attack bonus due to favored enemy.
This is where you're wrong.
Fighters get significantly more feats than Rangers.
You can get all of those feats plus cleave, plus greater cleave.
It eventually gets to the point where a high enough level fighter just wastes feats because it has so many.
By 20, 11 Bonus Feats in addition to the traditiona 7 (1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18) That's nearly 2.5x the amount of feats that Rangers get.
Getting all of the 2 weapon feats with the greater cleave still leaves 11 more feats.
Throw on Improved Critical, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Spec, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind attack, and hell...
Why not Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, and Spirited Charge?...
And you tell me a Ranger can output nearly that damage.
Also, you're also factoring in the assumption that you're fighting a favored enemy.
There are 32 types of creatures, and you get 5 favored enemies.
You do the math.
(and I normally play human, so +1 for the nurrz of it.) Rangers have always been a gimped class.
It goes all the way down to the numerical method in which classes are made in 3.0/3.5;
A lot of the "points" for the Ranger go straight into things like Hiding, Tracking, and pathetic healing spells.
Not to mention, if I recall correctly, Rangers have less points in their class than fighters.
If I recall correctly, Clerics and Monks had the most.
I realize you may love your ranger, and that's fine.
But just because you like it doesn't mean that the class is better than it is.
This post has been edited by Andy : Sep 12 2009, 05:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: This is where you're wrong.
Fighters get significantly more feats than Rangers.
You can get all of those feats plus cleave, plus greater cleave.
It eventually gets to the point where a high enough level fighter just wastes feats because it has so many.
By 20, 11 Bonus Feats in addition to the traditiona 7 (1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18) That's nearly 2.5x the amount of feats that Rangers get.
Getting all of the 2 weapon feats with the greater cleave still leaves 11 more feats.
Throw on Improved Critical, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Spec, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind attack, and hell...
Why not Mounted Combat, Ride-by Attack, and Spirited Charge?...
And you tell me a Ranger can output nearly that damage.
Also, you're also factoring in the assumption that you're fighting a favored enemy.
There are 32 types of creatures, and you get 5 favored enemies.
You do the math.
(and I normally play human, so +1 for the nurrz of it.) Rangers have always been a gimped class.
It goes all the way down to the numerical method in which classes are made in 3.0/3.5;
A lot of the "points" for the Ranger go straight into things like Hiding, Tracking, and pathetic healing spells.
Not to mention, if I recall correctly, Rangers have less points in their class than fighters.
If I recall correctly, Clerics and Monks had the most.
I realize you may love your ranger, and that's fine.
But just because you like it doesn't mean that the class is better than it is.
And that's exactly why fighters are terrible (edit: and inefficient by definition, so I refute that I'm wrong :P).
Most classes will usually optimize their feat selections by 12th level, but then these same classes continue to gain spells, allowing them to be infinitely more useful.
Fighter's however get to a point where their feats just become throw-a ways, and receive little to no further improvements.
A 20th level fighter with your build/wasted feats will have to contend with a 20th level ranger.
The ranger will have, for example (with 7 feats and the 2 bonus ones, not including human), two weapon fighting/improved/greater, weapon finesse most likely(to maximize AC/attack rolls), power attack, cleave, great cleave, improved critical, and an extra feat to throw around.
Now the only difference toe-to-toe is +4 to dmg rolls, +2 to attack rolls, and +1 to AC (+2 with 2 wep defense, but you didnt include that :P), and some hp.
So the ranger counters with cat's grace, bear's endurance, and bark skin.
Now they are all but equal except for a difference of +4 to dmg rolls.
So then take into account that the ranger can summon a dire boar/ape/whatever with grow animal, and greater magic fang cast on it.
Now, you do the math.
I'm not including mounted feats, or favored enemies, since they are pretty much purely situational.
In most instances in DnD you're not capable of mounted combat, and like you pointed out, it's unlikely you'll be fighting your favored enemy.
If you wanted to include mounted combat then I would include favored enemy human (since you prefer them) to counter.
Assuming all attacks hit, the average for the double damage from spirited charge would be fairly comparable to the +70 to min dmg the ranger would be granted.
To be fair to you, I'm not including weapons or ability modifiers, which fighters would maybe gain a slight edge.
I am also assuming the ranger would have the time to cast the above spells.
But let's be honest though, what are the chances of someone getting the drop on a 20th level ranger?
It's kinda what they do best.
:P
Argue as much as you want, but look it up anywhere on the net.
Fighter's have been widely known for a long time in 3.5 ed to be COMPARABLE at best.
Honestly too, fighter vs.
Ranger is the best chance a fighter would have.
Every class other than bard will usually trounce a fighter.
That's as far as I'm willing to argue the point though.
If you still disagree, go snoop around the min-maxing boards on wizards forum.
They are much better at presenting their cases better than I am, and they do love to do so.
:P
P.S. Just about forgot to add the mandatory inflammatory statement expected on PDA.
I realize you may love your fighter, and that's fine.
But just because you like it doesn't mean that the class is better than it is.
This post has been edited by Raziah : Yesterday, 02:20 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bard beats both classes, and they don't need mix-maxing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: A 20th level fighter with your build/wasted feats will have to contend with a 20th level ranger.
The ranger will have, for example (with 7 feats and the 2 bonus ones, not including human), two weapon fighting/improved/greater, weapon finesse most likely(to maximize AC/attack rolls), power attack, cleave, great cleave, improved critical, and an extra feat to throw around.
Now the only difference toe-to-toe is +4 to dmg rolls, +2 to attack rolls, and +1 to AC (+2 with 2 wep defense, but you didnt include that :P), and some hp.
So the ranger counters with cat's grace, bear's endurance, and bark skin.
Now they are all but equal except for a difference of +4 to dmg rolls.
So then take into account that the ranger can summon a dire boar/ape/whatever with grow animal, and greater magic fang cast on it.
Now, you do the math.
P.S.
Just about forgot to add the mandatory inflammatory statement expected on PDA.
I realize you may love your fighter, and that's fine.
But just because you like it doesn't mean that the class is better than it is.
Whirlwind Attack.
<~Major difference between our two situations.
Also, I don't have a Fighter.
I've played DM since...
High School. The only class I've ever played is Cleric (becuase nobody else ever wants to,) which I'm sure we can both agree is overpowered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|