Jump to content

mostundesired

Members
  • Content Count

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mostundesired

  1. Hey all, was trying my hand at modding for the first time and I can't quite get it to work. I'm trying to make Debonaire's Roguish Charm work on all enemies. I figured all I had to do was remove the conditional under AffectedTargetConditional, but the game doesn't seem to recognize any changes and I'm not sure why. Here's the original { "$type": "Game.GameData.AttackMeleeGameData, Assembly-CSharp", "DebugName": "Roguish_Charm_Melee", "ID": "6d5e0938-1ad8-4b14-b977-c1170fb370ef", "Components": [ { "$type": "Game.GameData.Attac
  2. This might be a hard nerf for rogues, their interrupt on most of their abilities has saved my hide plenty of times. It wouldn't be the same in TB, of course, but something worth mentioning.
  3. Fair point. Personally, though, I'd rather if be done that way. I remember a specific encounter in Divinity OS 2 where about 12 or more blob enemies were summoned all at once. I would take my actions, then have to wait while each and every one of them took their turn. Rather than tedious, it filled me with dread--the good, video gamey kind where you feel great when you win. Although to be fair, action points meant my characters could do more than one thing per turn, but the way it played out, it didn't feel like I was doing a whole lot at once. Two or three attacks, maybe, and it still too
  4. I agree that misses do slow down combat considerably, but hesitated to mention it because how much of that is due to low level jank? In the base game I always noticed when I missed which rather irked me, but I could live with it because when I did hit, it felt worth the time invested. And then in mid to late game, I would hit consistently because of weapons, level, etc. If it evens out in turnbased that same way, then it's more early game that needs some tweaking than every single fight (at least in regards to missing/hitting). A certain % miss to graze modifier, maybe?
  5. I'm calm, I'm just running out of ways to say it. Apologies if my bluntness seems aggressive. I'll try to explain better: You said earlier that ATB and dynamic turns are the same but inversed. That's only true of the mechanic to determine turn order, ATB doesn't pause everyone else. Dynamic/FFX does. Important distinction. Then after that, you asked what would be the point of doing ATB since that would just be the same as the base game. I guess I got confused, since no one suggested changing the game to ATB, so sorry about that. But the important thing I meant to respond to was you
  6. You seem to not be understanding something. ATB and the FFX-like system people are suggesting are not the same. To say they are is, for lack of better word, ignorant. ATB has everyone taking their turn independent of each other, thus why I compared it to RTWP. The FFX-like system does not have that. You don't act whenever you feel like it independent of the actions of others. You have to wait. To say that RTWP is the same system but without automatic pause is to dismiss all the critical nuances of having everyone act indepedent of each other. It makes a huge difference. If you just outright ig
  7. Running into you everywhere, huh? It's not the same, for reasons explained above and in every other thread that's discussed this. If anything, RTWP is closer to an ATB system than "dynamic" turn based. Combat would take longer, though.
  8. You misinterpret me, the issue is lack of recovery time means the dagger user has the same amount of options as the sword user, when part of the balance between the two was the dagger user could finish their attack quickly, and then go do something else. But yes, we're basically arguing the same idea. I'm not strawmanning you, I'm making my own suggestions and attempting to falsify them to make sure they stand. I wasn't directly responding to your ideas because they weren't 100% clear to me. I was asking how multiple strike the bells in one turn compares to one spell in terms of damage.
  9. I think you kind of missed my point. Of course the balance is going to be different, but they have an entire mechanic to adjust for. This did not only switch around what options are better than others. They can't JUST increase damage, or JUST add more attacks. Incoming wall of text. How do they account for a dagger user and a sword user using the same ability (strike the bell, let's say)? The sword user's will now always be better because it does more damage 9/10 times. What made you want to use daggers over swords, if ever, was action speed AND recovery (both affected by dex). That al
  10. Casters aren't the only class. The stats are supposed to be good for everyone, that's core to the design philosophy of the game. Besides them, not going first has very minimal disadvantages right now. Especially because the only way to deny someone a turn is by casting, interrupting a cast, or being one of the few non-caster classes that has paralysis or the like. Inventiveness for its own sake doesn't make for a fun combat system. It is counterproductive to a round system, but rounds are not the only way to have a turn-based system. More actions per turn would break the game faster th
  11. Well, I'm glad you understand the problem, but the point I was actually making was that if it is done that way, it needs to be done carefully. It can still totally be done that way imo. You still have "can kill before they have a chance to do anything to you or even defensively buff themselves" in RtWP, it just works differently and is balanced differently. So if they get rid of rounds and have consistent running initiative, they have to balance it differently. Which is the same problem we have with rounds (can work but needs balancing) but rounds seem to require much more work to... work.
  12. For argument's sake, we can't forget that there needs to be balancing towards the fact that players can't react to things like the enemy switching targets or trying to sneak over to your backline. If they manage to slip through your plan and do something you don't want them to do, you have to just sit there and take it. Characters with high initiative acting more often than other characters would be more dangerous because of that alone, so it can't be a perfect 1:1 of action speed to initiative.
  13. You keep saying this but I don't understand why this is a bad thing. "It's just deadfire, but turnbased" is exactly what they told us we'd be getting. And besides that, it wouldn't be the same. Changing it to turnbased still makes a huge difference. You have to stand still and wait for enemies to move before you take your (next) turn, you have to anticipate enemies actions rather than respond, you have to commit to an action you take, everything becomes prediction based rather than timing based and you have to rethink synergies and builds with all of that taken into consideration. "It's just t
  14. If they wanted to go this way, they'd have to remove automatic full-attacks when dual-wielding. They'd have to go back to alternating attacks, with individual initiative (recovery) times for each. That would mimic the base game. Otherwise dual-wielding would be comically overpowered. I'm open to this suggestion (getting rid of rounds). But they'd have to change "durations" of all abilities completely -- instead of counting in rounds, they'd have to count in initiative value (which would basically amount to units of time). A big part of me likes the idea that action speed is less valuab
  15. I agree, I don't think people are used to thinking about CC as something you want to cast ASAP instead of "at the right moment." Also, I'll respond to you here about rounds. I don't doubt they CAN tweak it to make it work, but why would you want that? I considered things like multiple actions per turn, but it just didn't make much sense when there's already an entire stat and mechanic dedicated to how often you can act which they chose not to translate into turns for reasons that are so far unclear. It just seems like the path of least resistance to get rid of rounds. Off the top of m
  16. I don’t really see the point of having the “two point” system from XCOM. The only relevance of movement is reaching enemy targets/moving out of the way. What if heavier armor would decrease the movement range? Well, that's exactly the point. It wouldn't always be relevant, but it's super important when it is, because again, you have to anticipate what's going to happen, not react to it. Plus, it helps out with things like entering combat later than party members in stealth mode, though I'm unsure how strong that'd be for, say, an alpha strike assassin. Not entirely opposed to heavy a
  17. I like the idea for initiative, don't like the idea for movement. The initiative suggestion falls in line with what Dex is supposed to do: you act more frequently. AP isn't, though. It's combining stride and dex into one thing and that affects a lot of buffs that exist in the game. A few people have suggested something like the XCOM games and D&D 5e where you can move up to double your normal stride per turn, but it uses up your action. Which is totally worth it, because turnbased mode makes setting up your position WAY more important. With RTwP, you have the option of immediately moving s
  18. I kind of understand what OP is getting at. A lot of base abilities for martial classes could've been made more mundane: Rogue's escape could give you Swift instead of teleporting, Ranger's tactical role could've been an actual rolling animation, both could temporarily remove collision boxes so you don't get stuck on other characters, Into the Fray could have a shorter range and still be useful but that might be pushing it. The upgrades tend to add magical effects for seemingly no reason; Barbarian and Monk in general have a lot of the-same-but-more-magical upgrades, although you could make an
  19. The problem imo isn't mundanity, it's that all the abilities are the same. No modals, no temporary self buffs, very little flavored abilities. It's all just afflictions. Fighter and Barbarian are just fine in both variety and flavor, and they're just as mundane.
  20. Exaggerating there, Cipher has some spells that interrupt on hit, not all of them like Rogue. I don't think that necessarily matters, though, because if you're just looking for interrupt, hobble or blind are probably the best options. Hobble because it's the cheapest, blind because it's cheap and has bonus accuracy. I'd hope there are reasons to use Rogue abilities besides interrupt, but without access to the full game I'm not seeing any. Anyway, 30% isn't that bad as a nerf, but I'm wondering firstly why, and secondly if they got anything to compensate for it. For one, if they have an eas
  21. I'm satisfied with rogues' abilities for my own purposes, even if the tree is pretty sparse. My impression on level 8/9 rogue abilities is that they're designed towards helping out with alpha strikes. If you're playing an assassin (or just general rogue) that way, they're pretty good. But if not, yeah, not worth it. Mostly concerned with how useful those alpha strikes will ultimately be; I've been burned too many times by games giving me really high damage abilities, only for it to not matter against bosses because of immunities/sheer amount of health. As for the 6/7 abilities/upgrades, th
  22. IIRC, he said he theorized part of the reason why multiclass Rogues have higher damage numbers is because they bother to wear heavier armor, whereas single class don't. Didn't explicitly say single class Rogues have the highest damage when wearing heavy armor. Worth testing, though.
  23. Bold part is my problem. Rogues have to rely on the party, specifically because their own abilities are lackluster. Other classes don't. They do work with the party, because you design your party with synergy, but it's not a prerequisite to fulfilling their roles. Persisting Distraction is one part of a solution, lets rogues sneak attack in melee for free. Squish is a factor there. Not a big deal, as I said, but a factor that can make or break depending on how the encounter plays out. Use abilities to even it out? There's the problem, gotta have the party bail out the rogue. Meanwhile, range h
×
×
  • Create New...