Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Will warriors be able to kill things now?


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#41
MortyTheGobbo

MortyTheGobbo

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 132 posts

Honestly, the fighter in IE games wasn't meaningfully different from rangers or barbarians. They all get up close and deal damage. All that changes is where they get numbers from. Paladins actually differ in that they get magic.

 

"Fighter" as D&D defines it is a lousy class concept, basically. It means the generic class that doesn't have anything too special about it. Defining it as the durable defender might not be ideal, but it's a much better starting point. Particularly in Deadfire, where multiclassing will hopefully let you strike a balance between tankiness and damage by multiclassing a fighter with barbarian and/or rogue. Emphasis on hopefully, since it's a very ambitious plan.


Edited by MortyTheGobbo, 06 May 2017 - 12:36 PM.

  • Karkarov likes this

#42
Judicator

Judicator

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 145 posts

 

Now hold on there. It was Obsidian that marketed PoE as a return to IE-style games like BG and IWD. If they wanted to seperate the IE Fighter from the PoE variant then they should have called it something else.

And I hardly consider Korgan broken when Sorcerers are in the game. Not to mention a whole bunch of different multi-class/item combos that were pretty OP. But then, that's part of the fun of BG, which is something PoE is missing, IMO.

 

 

fact sorcerers could be broken did not prevent korgan, dual-wielding artifacts, from also being busted. 'tween his berserker abilities and a handful o' potions or spells, you could make korgan immune to just 'bout anything, and dual-wielding with a hammer which raised his strength 25 and an insta-kill axe were silly busted. 

 

oh, and we agree 'bout the naming issue as you would recognize if you read our responses.  shoulda' named the poe fighter different.  defender or something similar.  nevertheless, not only did obsidian explain how a poe fighter would not be functioning the same as a ie game fighter, but they gave reasons as to why the poe fighter would not be able to do exact what you is asking from the developers.  all such explanations were made considerable in advance o' the game release, so no surprises or misleadings can be argued. 

 

http://forums.obsidi...ring/?p=1507492

 

is there a flaw in josh's reasoning, or is you simple arguing nostalgia?  you ain't demanding a return to the flawed ie game approach is required simple 'cause o' nostalgia, eh? spiritual successor is meaningless, but even if you see as some kinda gestalt, it sure as heck don't require obsidian to enshrine every ie game/d&d mistake.  making fighters equal capable at absorbing and delivering damage in ie games were a mistake as discussed by josh in the link.  use dual-wielding korgan hurts your argument as it is an example o' the overpowered nonsense possible in bg2. 

 

folks in this thread were pointing out just how fantabulous the poe fighters were at doing damage.  such a reality, sadly, were the result o' the obsidian developers letting the poe fighter getting out-o-hand. the poe fighter as it existed in the 3.0 builds were not the fighter described by josh way back in june o' 2014.

 

http://forums.obsidi...ians/?p=1460938

 

poe 2 developers should take the chance to correct the class role slippage which occurred during the beta and post release o' poe.  numerous classes were given superpowers which blurred their class identities.  mistake.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

I wouldn't really consider him overpowered when half the enemies can just flat out stop time itself, summon demons, and insta kill all your squishy party members within a turn.

 

The problem with your reasoning is that you expect everyone to have read up on all the dev posts before even playing the game. If you're some dude who just saw PoE and figured "Hey, this looks kinda like Baldur's Gate and I loved that game. Lets give it a try." you'd be pretty surprised by how different some classes were. You shouldn't have to do homework before buying a game.

I can't agree that making fighters that can, you know, fight is a mistake either. It makes no sense that the only class that can master weapons will be outperformed by a half-mad savage or some forest hippie.



#43
Gromnir

Gromnir

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 6937 posts
  • Location:Sleeping in my office.
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

 

I wouldn't really consider him overpowered when half the enemies can just flat out stop time itself, summon demons, and insta kill all your squishy party members within a turn.

 

The problem with your reasoning is that you expect everyone to have read up on all the dev posts before even playing the game. If you're some dude who just saw PoE and figured "Hey, this looks kinda like Baldur's Gate and I loved that game. Lets give it a try." you'd be pretty surprised by how different some classes were. You shouldn't have to do homework before buying a game.

I can't agree that making fighters that can, you know, fight is a mistake either. It makes no sense that the only class that can master weapons will be outperformed by a half-mad savage or some forest hippie.

 

you can make korgan effective ignored by demons with a low-level priest spell or scrolls.  you can negate most insta-kills with his kit abilities or scrolls.  as for the rare time stops, that is why you got your own wizards in a party, but chances are you wouldn't need 'cause your likely super-speed korgan with weapons o' doom has likely killed any but a handful o' bg2 foes in a matter o' seconds.  is not much need to argue this further.  if you are honest not seeing grandmaster korgan, dual-wielding hammer o' thunderbolts and the axe of yielding as an example o' bg2 op, then poe is clear not the game for you.  such munchkiny nonsense is exact the kinda ie bagage the obsidian developers were ridding themselves o' when they built poe.  still got got all kinda poe features which is familiar to the ie fan w/o the busted arse korgan example, so claims o' spiritual successor failure is dubious at best.

 

as for complaining justified ignorance, am unmoved.  nobody in their right mind is gonna assume everything 'bout poe would be identical to the ie games, particular as the ie games were so varied.  would be impossible to make poe like all the ie games.  even so, if you contributed to the kickstarter, then you would get emailed developer updates.  read or not is on you. if you were late to the party and simple bought on a whim, then feign ignorance 'cause thac0 were abandoned or dual-classing were missing or the aforementioned insta-kills were removed would be a prime example o' recognizing ye olde warning to the foolish: caveat emptor.  again, the reasonable person is gonna assume changes would be made.  you not care enough to check what is different is on you. 'course is moot as you is now informed.  so congrats.  problem solved, eh?

 

every class in the game is having combat use, so all classes fight.  if is simple the naming nomenclature which continues to baffle you, then am amused, but am doubtful there is much help coming your way.  get a name-change from fighter to defender seems unlikely at this point, yes? 'course to simple demand poe fighters who can fight ignores reality and the developer response to your complaint.  perhaps you did not notice, but poe is a squad-based, tactical combat game with rpg elements.  to play poe w/o one or two tanks makes it more difficult for your party to fight effective. heck, we rare do a potd run without a tank and an off-tank. nevertheless, chanters fight. priests fight. ciphers fight.  fighters do indeed fight.

 

*shrug*

 

also, if you are gonna refuse to read or respond to the actual developer reasons for making the poe fighter, "low-maintenance, reliable, and long-lived even in marathon battles," as 'posed to being able to chunk everything and withstand trebuchet strikes as were the case with 2nd edition fighters, then am not gonna be able to make much headway.   we linked.  don't wanna read?  don't understand?  am not seeing how to help you.

 

am repeating self.  until we get word from obsidian, am not seeing a reason to prolong the agony.  am actual a bit curious 'bout obsidian plans for a number o' poe classes which mutated with every build... and for the rogue which largely kept its original role and thus became marginalized. 'course is gonna be nothing but conjecture 'til we hear from the developers or get our hands on the beta.

 

HA! Good Fun!


  • anameforobsidian and rheingold like this

#44
Judicator

Judicator

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 145 posts

Honestly, the fighter in IE games wasn't meaningfully different from rangers or barbarians. They all get up close and deal damage. All that changes is where they get numbers from. Paladins actually differ in that they get magic.

 

"Fighter" as D&D defines it is a lousy class concept, basically. It means the generic class that doesn't have anything too special about it. Defining it as the durable defender might not be ideal, but it's a much better starting point. Particularly in Deadfire, where multiclassing will hopefully let you strike a balance between tankiness and damage by multiclassing a fighter with barbarian and/or rogue. Emphasis on hopefully, since it's a very ambitious plan.

 

Well, considering that Barbarians were mechanically a Fighter kit, it makes sense that they're so similar.

I disagree. They're not generic, they're the most pure warriors in the setting, other warriors like Paladins and Rangers are basically Fighters with gimmicks.

 

 

 

I wouldn't really consider him overpowered when half the enemies can just flat out stop time itself, summon demons, and insta kill all your squishy party members within a turn.

 

The problem with your reasoning is that you expect everyone to have read up on all the dev posts before even playing the game. If you're some dude who just saw PoE and figured "Hey, this looks kinda like Baldur's Gate and I loved that game. Lets give it a try." you'd be pretty surprised by how different some classes were. You shouldn't have to do homework before buying a game.

I can't agree that making fighters that can, you know, fight is a mistake either. It makes no sense that the only class that can master weapons will be outperformed by a half-mad savage or some forest hippie.

 

you can make korgan effective ignored by demons with a low-level priest spell or scrolls.  you can negate most insta-kills with his kit abilities or scrolls.  as for the rare time stops, that is why you got your own wizards in a party, but chances are you wouldn't need 'cause your likely super-speed korgan with weapons o' doom has likely killed any but a handful o' bg2 foes in a matter o' seconds.  is not much need to argue this further.  if you are honest not seeing grandmaster korgan, dual-wielding hammer o' thunderbolts and the axe of yielding as an example o' bg2 op, then poe is clear not the game for you.  such munchkiny nonsense is exact the kinda ie bagage the obsidian developers were ridding themselves o' when they built poe.  still got got all kinda poe features which is familiar to the ie fan w/o the busted arse korgan example, so claims o' spiritual successor failure is dubious at best.

 

as for complaining justified ignorance, am unmoved.  nobody in their right mind is gonna assume everything 'bout poe would be identical to the ie games, particular as the ie games were so varied.  would be impossible to make poe like all the ie games.  even so, if you contributed to the kickstarter, then you would get emailed developer updates.  read or not is on you. if you were late to the party and simple bought on a whim, then feign ignorance 'cause thac0 were abandoned or dual-classing were missing or the aforementioned insta-kills were removed would be a prime example o' recognizing ye olde warning to the foolish: caveat emptor.  again, the reasonable person is gonna assume changes would be made.  you not care enough to check what is different is on you. 'course is moot as you is now informed.  so congrats.  problem solved, eh?

 

every class in the game is having combat use, so all classes fight.  if is simple the naming nomenclature which continues to baffle you, then am amused, but am doubtful there is much help coming your way.  get a name-change from fighter to defender seems unlikely at this point, yes? 'course to simple demand poe fighters who can fight ignores reality and the developer response to your complaint.  perhaps you did not notice, but poe is a squad-based, tactical combat game with rpg elements.  to play poe w/o one or two tanks makes it more difficult for your party to fight effective. heck, we rare do a potd run without a tank and an off-tank. nevertheless, chanters fight. priests fight. ciphers fight.  fighters do indeed fight.

 

*shrug*

 

also, if you are gonna refuse to read or respond to the actual developer reasons for making the poe fighter, "low-maintenance, reliable, and long-lived even in marathon battles," as 'posed to being able to chunk everything and withstand trebuchet strikes as were the case with 2nd edition fighters, then am not gonna be able to make much headway.   we linked.  don't wanna read?  don't understand?  am not seeing how to help you.

 

am repeating self.  until we get word from obsidian, am not seeing a reason to prolong the agony.  am actual a bit curious 'bout obsidian plans for a number o' poe classes which mutated with every build... and for the rogue which largely kept its original role and thus became marginalized. 'course is gonna be nothing but conjecture 'til we hear from the developers or get our hands on the beta.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

It's clear we're not going to agree, so I'll just say two things. You can easily make OP characters in PoE as well, so Obsidian failed if their goal was to avoid that, and those powerful builds and crazy spells/weapons in BG2 made the game more memorable and fun IMO. Epic level/high level campaigns always end up with cheesy munchkin builds, it's the logical conclusion after dozens of hours of killing progressively more powerful monsters. Even "hardcore" games like Dark Souls are affected by this.


Edited by Judicator, 08 May 2017 - 01:47 AM.


#45
Borissimo

Borissimo

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Fighters are in an awkward spot due to the classes' D&D legacy, I think. They had to be the "generic" fighting class that didn't have anything too special about it, except for "reliability".

 

Actually, if fighters in PoE are a problem, it's because they didn't follow their D&D legacy. PoE was clearly inspired by the 4th edition of D&D. The "encounter" concept, talents, and the idea of "engagement" all have clear analogues in that edition. Now in 4e, Fighters were an awesome class from day 1 and continued to be one of the funnest classes in the game even after many other classes had been added. Unfortunately, this coolness did not carry over to PoE.

 

A 4e Fighter "marks" any enemy that he attacks, regardless if the attack hits or misses. Marked enemies have an accuracy penalty when attacking anybody other than the fighter, and if a marked enemy does decide to attack someone other than the fighter (and the fighter is in reach), the fighter gets a free attack against it. Furthermore, if an enemy "breaks engagement" with the fighter and the fighter's opportunity attack hits, the enemy stops moving. These mechanics are incredibly simple yet genius, turning the fighter into a credible tank that dishes out good damage and requires a lot of thoughtful play.

 

Why Obsidian didn't borrow some of these ideas is a bit of a mystery, considering the designers clearly had an intimate knowledge of 4e. Perhaps they thought fighters would be good enough without these tanking tools and only hindsight reveals that they weren't. What I learned playing 4e is that "tank" does not have to mean "boring," and while I get that that having a limp turtle who does nothing but cower on the front lines is stupid, I do wish that the concept of tanking were more fully realized in PoE. As it stands, there are only two options for each character: ranged damage-dealer and armor-wearing melee damage dealer.


  • illathid likes this

#46
MortyTheGobbo

MortyTheGobbo

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 132 posts

I'm really not sure if PoE has any 4e inspiration, except for per-encounter powers. As novel and borderline heretical a concept as actual abilities for non-magical classes was for 3rd edition D&D, it's hardly unique to RPGs as a whole. Attacks of opportunity are older than 4e too, and engagement is a variant of this concept.

 

That being said, 4e fighter is an example of a class that manages to be a tank, while still being able to actually fight. And like you said, it's accomplished in simple, but effective ways.

 

Of course, while we can talk about how to make a fighter a fun tank, they're not the only class that can fulfil this role. Or rather, they shouldn't be.



#47
rjshae

rjshae

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4386 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I think that trained fighters should really benefit from being in a fighting formation. Their abilities should benefit those arrayed in the same formation. They gain this somewhat with the Guardian ability, but more could be done.



#48
smjjames

smjjames

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 365 posts

I think that trained fighters should really benefit from being in a fighting formation. Their abilities should benefit those arrayed in the same formation. They gain this somewhat with the Guardian ability, but more could be done.

 

Battle formations would have to be a thing first in order for that to work. As it is, they mostly fall apart on contact with the enemy.



#49
rjshae

rjshae

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4386 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

 

I think that trained fighters should really benefit from being in a fighting formation. Their abilities should benefit those arrayed in the same formation. They gain this somewhat with the Guardian ability, but more could be done.

 

Battle formations would have to be a thing first in order for that to work. As it is, they mostly fall apart on contact with the enemy.

 

Yes, in the shifting tides of battle, lines change and reform. But fighters should benefit from conditions that don't especially favor the barbarian, if only to distinguish the two. Veteran fighters should benefit from fighting as a team... barbarians not so much. If you form a line with a fighter, you should be better off.



#50
4ward

4ward

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 259 posts

it doesn‘t need to be formation, something like two chars bonding. If i select my fighter and then another guy from my party then click on bonding then both chars stay close improving their defense rating, they can block, tank and be those guys you don‘t need to micromanage that much like gromnir&co like it. The player could abandon bonding whenever he likes. Better than that crap of engagement system.



#51
MaxQuest

MaxQuest

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1011 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

If i select my fighter and then another guy from my party then click on bonding then both chars stay close improving their defense rating [...]

Back-to-back fighting.

#52
MortyTheGobbo

MortyTheGobbo

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 132 posts

I still think that the Fighter class should emphasize battlefield control, which they already get through Knock Down, Clear Out or Overbearing Guard. But defensive boosts for the other party members would work with that. Multiclassing means that every class can have a stronger identity, but they shouldn't be narrowed down to one build. Neither should a particular role (tank in this case) be limited to one class.



#53
Boeroer

Boeroer

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 5889 posts
  • Location:Bucharest, Romania
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
The fighter has supporting abilities like Take the Hit and Guardian Stance. The problem is that those abilities are bad.
  • anameforobsidian likes this

#54
smjjames

smjjames

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 365 posts

The fighter has supporting abilities like Take the Hit and Guardian Stance. The problem is that those abilities are bad.

 

Bad in what way?



#55
Boeroer

Boeroer

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 5889 posts
  • Location:Bucharest, Romania
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!
In several ways. ;)

Take the Hit is awfully bugged when you use mind control. A charmed troll for example also benefits from Take the Hit. That's annoying, but fair enough - but the problem is that he will benefit from it even after the charm stops - until he's dead. Since you will have to kill that troll in the end you have to move the fighter out of range or turn off Take the Hit. Superannoying!
Then the base AoE is too small. It's only effective with high INT.

Guardian Stance's AoE is also too small and it doesn't stack with other deflection buffs and has a drawback for the fighter. Paladin's auras don't have drawbacks and are bigger.

Both are modals that prevent you to use other modal abilities of the same group.

#56
4ward

4ward

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 259 posts

@MortyTheGobbo

don‘t know if you played the old IE games like the Baldurs Gate series but there you could easily affect targetting of melee opponents since most often than not they would simply attack your nearest char. So, e.g. if your weaker char is being attacked then you move him toward say your fighter and then the fighter takes over. Combat is more interesting that way as what chars do can vary from one encounter to the next, sometimes even within one battle. I would bet that ‚controlling the battlefield‘ is actually as effective in an IE game as it‘s in Pillars (certainly to a part also because there‘s less enemies at a time than in Pillars).



#57
MortyTheGobbo

MortyTheGobbo

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 132 posts

The AI not being smart enough to do more than attack the nearest party member doesn't qualify as battlefield control. Tactical depth in the IE games comes entirely from spells; non-magical characters have none. Which, granted, Pillars isn't so great about, either. But we kind of hope Deadfire will improve on that.


  • illathid and Sonntam like this

#58
4ward

4ward

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 259 posts

for the IE games it does qualify since you‘re not dealing with as many opponents as in Pillars. It‘s just one aspect of tactics in the IE games. I don‘t consider overrunning the player with enemies and then handing out per-encounter abilities as tactical depth. What i consider tactically challenging and also fun is when enemies have interesting abilities and don‘t necessarily need to pass by your front line. E.g. a vampire in BG2 can dire charm from afar and close in for leveldrain, he doesn‘t need to get to your backline. And it wouldn‘t make that much sense either since the protective spells like mirror image (used by the first enemy mage near the friendly arm inn in BG1), stoneskin, fireshield etc. are good enough to protect a caster. The AI is improved through mods for BG2 where opponents like say a lich don‘t summon a pitfiend and then proceed to waste spells on him because they forgot casting protection from evil.

 

There definately is tactical depth for melee chars. Next to movement and affecting enemy targetting, there‘s also melee retargeting which is a valid option since there‘s no AoOs. Then there‘s changing gear if you want to try to intrerupt a far enemy caster or attack a creature that is immune to a specfic weapon type. Then there‘s a great variety of potions which have limited quantity so that the player needs to consider if and when to use them. Compare that to per-encounter abilities like the mentioned knockdown which are a no-brainer and mostly simply used at the start of combat to get the upper hand. So, all in all, for me at least, being thrown against a much greater number of opponents and then trying to stop them with always the same abilities of my build is IMO definately not more tactically challegning than the battles in BG2. Pillars gives me the illusion that it‘s tactically challenging but it isn‘t. I much prefer going against less foes who have cool abilities, take the right decision when to use them and where enemy composition (mix of melee and ranged oppponents) provides decisionmaking.



#59
Archaven

Archaven

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 599 posts
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Sounds like you haven't played since patch 2.0 came out. Pure tanks Fighters became pretty bad post 2.0 due to the changes to engagement AI meaning enemies will simply ignore the engagement of a tough, nonthreatening opponent. It's not pretty much required that Fighters are designed to be hybrid tabk/damage dealers if not pure damage dealers. They aren't the most damaging class around, but they do respectable single target damage with fairly little micro and even when built for pure damage they're fairly survivable.

 

That sound awesome to my ears. Have you played Dragon Age Inquisition before if i may asked? Tanks can only be tanks with their warcry aggro ability only for x seconds. And that gets fairly boring when warcry is on CD and the rest of the party just running around kiting.



#60
anameforobsidian

anameforobsidian

    (8) Warlock

  • Members
  • 1045 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

for the IE games it does qualify since you‘re not dealing with as many opponents as in Pillars. It‘s just one aspect of tactics in the IE games. I don‘t consider overrunning the player with enemies and then handing out per-encounter abilities as tactical depth. What i consider tactically challenging and also fun is when enemies have interesting abilities and don‘t necessarily need to pass by your front line. E.g. a vampire in BG2 can dire charm from afar and close in for leveldrain, he doesn‘t need to get to your backline. And it wouldn‘t make that much sense either since the protective spells like mirror image (used by the first enemy mage near the friendly arm inn in BG1), stoneskin, fireshield etc. are good enough to protect a caster. The AI is improved through mods for BG2 where opponents like say a lich don‘t summon a pitfiend and then proceed to waste spells on him because they forgot casting protection from evil.

 

There definately is tactical depth for melee chars. Next to movement and affecting enemy targetting, there‘s also melee retargeting which is a valid option since there‘s no AoOs. Then there‘s changing gear if you want to try to intrerupt a far enemy caster or attack a creature that is immune to a specfic weapon type. Then there‘s a great variety of potions which have limited quantity so that the player needs to consider if and when to use them. Compare that to per-encounter abilities like the mentioned knockdown which are a no-brainer and mostly simply used at the start of combat to get the upper hand. So, all in all, for me at least, being thrown against a much greater number of opponents and then trying to stop them with always the same abilities of my build is IMO definately not more tactically challegning than the battles in BG2. Pillars gives me the illusion that it‘s tactically challenging but it isn‘t. I much prefer going against less foes who have cool abilities, take the right decision when to use them and where enemy composition (mix of melee and ranged oppponents) provides decisionmaking.

 

Ok, apparently we've forgotten what the IE games were like.  Not that many enemies?  Did you clear out a different gnoll fortress, go to a different mine filled with kobolds, miss the xvart camp, or just completely forget about the bandit camp?  That's just BG.  BG2 & ToB have sendai's lair, orc ambushes, infini-drow city, the siege, a murderous demon for every party member fight, and summon monster frequently made swarms.

 

SCS liches are boring to fight.  Teleport field + 30 buffs + melfs meteor's do not exactly make for an interesting fight.  Basically you strip their counterspells with the mage and heal the mage if they get too hurt.  The the fighters who have been useless except possibly as a meatshield take like three hits and the lich is dead.  Once is fun; twice it gets old; third lich and SCS goes off for mages.  There's a difference between challenge and tedium.

 

Also, BG II throws healing potions and invisiblility potions at the enemies.  So many random encounters have rogues that use them.  Yes there are rarer and cursed potions, but frequently they're outclassed by a superior spell, or rod of resurrections make them obsolete.  Pillars honestly distributes potions & scrolls at a similar rate.

 

 

Now, onto Pillars supposed lack of tactical complexity.  That argument is complete and utter tripe.

  • Engagement provides a tactical decision for attackers.  I'm doing my Ultimate run right now, and I was facing a nasty vithrak.  I had to face the decision: do I risk an engagement stun attack and let the dragon roared do its work, or do I hope I can avoid a stunlock and summon ogres, or do I hope that they one of its fellows mind controls me so I break engagement while they fight my beetles.  Without engagement, I could simply dragon slashed kite most of the game.
  • Pillars has granulated movement speed, so it becomes an issue.  A troll will never wipe a mage with expeditious retreat.
  • Teleporting enemies are a real problem (that was most absent from BG); do you take the hits, retreat to a corner, or get a knockback talent like grimoire slam?
  • Using knockdown at the start of combat?  Only if you're sure it will hit before debuffs land, and the enemy isn't immune.  Use and understanding of the power of prone is one of pillar's strengths.
  • Charm can wreck your party.  How do you counter?  Charm them with your own cipher or chanter, knock them down, hit them with a paladin, use a chant to buff defenses or break it, suppress affliction from a ring or priest.  In BG2 if you get hit by domination, reload and cast chaotic commands before the fight.
  • Characters are pushed and pulled in Pillars, changing positioning.

 

Really, looking at Pillars the only mechanics it lacks which BG2 had are instadeath (which sucks), petrification (which breaks some sidequests) and is pretty much instadeath, and rock, paper, scissors spell-fights.  Well that, and whatever the **** beholders do.  None of those are terribly good mechanics.  Timestop was kinda interesting, but it was the purest distillation of the magic system; everyone else stood still while the mage did all the work; you hardly ever saw timestop though.

 

I love the BG series and beat it with SCS and the Acension mod.  That doesn't mean that other games are without merit merely for being different.


Edited by anameforobsidian, 25 May 2017 - 04:18 PM.

  • illathid, JerekKruger and MortyTheGobbo like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users