mostundesired
-
Posts
108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by mostundesired
-
-
No, Interrupts stay in. You can only interrupt while enemies cast a spell.
I do not want to push enemies back in turn order during their recovery time when they do nothing and just wait for their next turn.
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.
-
Yeah actions can go off at the same time that's true, the underlying system is still pretty much the same. You just have it when 2 actions occur simultaneously one gets priority based on X. Whether it be dex score or favored to player or enemies.
Now the huge problem with this initiative based system is going to be combats against larger swarms of enemies. FFX is based around low numbers of enemies, now imagine the mode like it is now where against large swarms you're going to bounce back and forth forever taking single actions. The benefit of a round based mode is you're able to fill in more actions on a turn (potentially) and hopefully shorten these encounters.
Do you really want to control a single auto attack, wait for enemy to change , bounce back, and auto attack again? Being able to fit multiple actions on a turn kind of NEEDS to be a thing or TTK will just be super tedious like it is currently
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 took me quite a few turns to kill just one of them. Point being, swarms won't be that bad so long as they feel like a legitimate threat and/or achievement, and they figure out the damage to turn ratio. I said in another thread that low level accuracy might be a huge contributor to the tedium, and IIRC someone said that once you start having enough accuracy to hit regularly, it feels better.
So I think multiple actions per turn or multiple reoccurring turns could both fix the tedium issue. The former for reasons said before, and the latter because you'll be doing something more frequently (at least the high dex characters). Take that with a grain of salt, though.
-
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?
-
1
-
-
Woa calm down with the agression there, you misunderstood what I said. ATB is the same as the base PoE system it just pauses when the action gauge hits 0, when I say PoE I mean RTWP that's why I didn't make a distinction of it being outside the base game mode. I mean I feel they could just add a pause box that you can click that says "pause when recovery hits 0" and that would be the ATB system.
The ATB system will be really slow, really really slow, rounds are fine they just need to find a decent TTK, and to work out the kinks.
I just find it funny how peoole go into big explanations of things like the ATB system and don't seem to realize it's the same system of RTWP just with no pause when recovery hits 0 (the action bar filling up)
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 said you'd rather they change the system to a new thing instead of playing just a slower Deadfire, and I guess I assumed the conversation regressed back to having to explain that FFX-like turnbased wouldn't just be slower Deadfire. So were you just speaking in hyperbole and it flew over my head? Because otherwise, I was reading it as "FFX=Inversed ATB, and ATB=RTWP, therefore FFX=RTWP."
Words are hard. Anyway, the big explanations and nitpicking aren't because people aren't realizing the similarity, it's because the small differences could screw up the game and mechanics on a fundamental level, which we're trying to avoid obviously. I suppose expectations are the issue here, since some are expecting only the very minor but game-altering change of "everyone takes turns," and others expect an entire overhaul (rounds, actions per turn, etc).
And personally, the more I think about it, the less an overhaul in that manner makes sense. Like taking the pieces of a table and putting them together into a chair. Everything's connected awkwardly and you have too many leftover pieces.
-
2
-
-
Yeah I know, I think action speed is the only non linear thing and it's why everything's wo wonky.
What I'm saying is that the ATB is just PoE that pauses before the action is taken its not really another system it's just an addition pause.
I mean at that point, what's the point of the turn based mode?
I'd rather see them wing something crazy that's balanced differently instead of the base game 10000X slower.
Edit: I will add for stuff like int I'm not sure there is a great solution, with PL stuff does scale faster and you do get the other benefits, maybe they can increase the other benefits more in TB I have no idea!
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 ignore it, I don't know how you expect to have a serious conversation on the topic.
-
You're making it more confusing than it needs to be imo. The normal base game IS like final fantasy or an dynamic system because it is.
The base game just removes the pause at the end of the action, what hrs saying is true if they just directly do that the turn based mode will be super slow without changes.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.-- It's the same in the base game if you use strike the bell the swords are better 100% of the time for an ability for damage, If light weapons had a trait where they could gain an additional attack or two while using a Full Round action it could continue to mimic how it works in game.
--We're sort of arguing the same point, but drawing separate conclusions.[/font]
I think your sort of straw-manning what i'm saying but i don't think it's intentional. Multiple free actions probably needs to be capped to maybe 2 a round. Now your asking how Using Strike the bell + a few auto attacks stack up against a spell? It works the same way is it currently does in the game (although in game you can just use strike the bell spamming it). Spells are incredibly strong they come with riders whether it be CC or debuffs, and cast in large AoE's. IMO the spell casting is fine, a FULL ROUND action is that, it cost the entire round, you can't cast multiple high tier spells. I have no idea where you're getting action speed and all this other stuff from i never really mentioned it.
Right now wizards / druid casting is fairly good if you have low enough initiative you get penalized which is good. The problem right now is Martial builds only get access to a single attack compared to a wizard casting a fireball, which is pretty bad. Now I really like round based combat, so regardless of how they do it Weapon based builds need a way to attack multiple times a round. I think in General DPR (damage per round) needs to be higher. Now if DPR goes up initiative becomes a much better stat (increase damage for enemies too).
Now if initiative is tied to gaining multiple attacks it becomes EVEN BETTER than it is in the base game where it's arguably by far the strongest stat in most cases. It will now allow you to ACT first and increase your DPR. So now your damage dealers are acting at the top of the round getting all there high damage out and you can probably remove enemies straight from combat.
I think they need to add another action type or two maybe to help round out the action economy.
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. And the point was, are damage spells worth casting under these circumstances? If they are, then they are, but my point stands because I'm drawing attention to the balancing factor itself to make sure it works.
I'll respond to your idea now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying the way it should work is one standard action, and then bonus attacks based on weapon type? I hope you include dex into that because the point is to make that stat useful to every class. But, as you said, that means high dex equates to attacking first and the ability to alpha strike and take out enemies in turn one. Ignoring for a second that you can do that with RTWP regardless of dex, the glaring issue I can see is, what if I WANT to immediately spam all my abilities turn one? That was also one of the benefits of dex, using as many abilities as possible in a small amount of time. It gave you flexibility. What's the proportional equivalent if dex only allows me to go first? I suppose setting up positioning first or applying a quick single target (de)buff is nice, but that's literally what we have now that makes dex undervalued. Attacking all at once before the enemy gets to respond and hopefully taking them out? Well, possibly. That does become more valuable with higher damage per turn. But then small weapons are still undervalued. Instead, I would just pump dex and use the strongest single hit weapon I have. The only reason to use a small weapon is if I was going to do something with those extra attacks. Say, use multiple abilities. Circle back to the other concerns I have.
Different types of actions could fix that problem. What goes into which category and why, though? Do damage only attacks go into once per turn, and (de)buffs go into the "extra actions" slots that are based on your weapon? Are pure buffs still free actions? Because between buffing myself and damaging/debuffing the enemy, I think most would choose the latter for efficiency's sake alone. Should we limit those free actions (we should), and by how much, and does dex influence that too? What about consumables and movement? Personally, I'd put extra movements and consumable use in the "extra action based on weapon type" category. But, if those extra actions HAVE to be basic attacks, small weapons just aren't worth using, even if they do the same amount of damage. Too much RNG involved compared to medium or large weapons.
Plus, you'd have to figure out how to separate weapon speed from dex/initiative in a balanced way. Seems doable but I'm trepidatious.
And that's before we get into things like the weird interaction between ability duration and int, and the problems with guns, and the problem with chapters, three problems I only just started to consider and are a direct result of implementing rounds.
EDIT: On top of that, what about dual wielding weapons of different speeds? And one ranged and one melee? I'm partial to dagger and pistol myself and the current system doesn't mesh well with it.
-
2
-
-
Well you can look at it two ways, having stuff that isn't good in RTWP be good in turn based is pretty awesome. Being able to use weapon modals you'd normally never use is awesome! An increase in damage makes going first more important because you or the enemies die faster. If you play fps games getting the drop one someone is so strong because ttk is low.
It is okay to have different balance between game modes, not having action speed lord over eveything can be a good thing. As I said you still need it for casters or you'll lose turns which makes your casters much worse. Again it's okay to have balance be different it's going to happen in a different mode. Right now the mode suffers from being sluggish and slow imo. I think they need to figure out how long they want an average encounter to be (total rounds) and balance accordingly. You can have some fights take a while in TMWP but if you extend that over rounds it can be a bit much.
I think eveyone can agree the fights are a bit to long in this mode and it can get rather annoying.
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 allowed a quicker reaction to potential dangers, shutting down an ability I don't want used/casted or delaying a big hitter until I can get that one last bit of damage in.
Of course, that doesn't translate to turn based, you have to anticipate, not react. Well, my dagger helps me anticipate a little bit, because I can go first, but rounds ensure that everyone gets a turn unless I have one of the few abilities that let's me paralyze (or whatever) the enemy. If I'm lucky, or I planned right, I can delay them until the rest of my party takes them out. A good move, but one that won't come up often. Going first will almost never matter. At best, you'll delay a caster's spell so you can interrupt it before it finishes being casted next turn. That's good! Or, I could just dump my dex and interrupt it on the same turn. Swords also have two damage types, and without being able to attack more often, swords will always be better in that regard, too.
So if going first isn't too effective, we have to concentrate on the other thing sex does, allow more actions. Logically, more dex would mean more actions per turn. Well, that evens out the damage, but there's still other things to account for.
Let's look at concentration. I can get rid of it, then use another interrupting attack to delay their turn. Two problems, if they have concentration, they probably already went this round. And even if they didn't, it doesn't matter, because delaying their turn doesn't help me. And hell, what do I even need concentration for, if I'm not casting? Even if I get delayed, I still get my turn. The only way I can see that being worthwhile (and correct me if I'm wrong but I'm going to go on anyway) is if interrupt skips your turn.
We can't just have flat out turn skipping, though. That can be exploited something fierce in this game in particular because of the many sources of interrupts. So what then? Does interrupt instead deny the character an action? Now that, actually, sounds like a good idea. Makes interrupt and concentration stacks relevant without being overpowering. Maybe prone takes two actions, and flying up into the air takes three. Who knows.
Well, let's look at multiple actions per turn now. Multiple free actions is already stupid strong. I don't think multiple standard actions would be AS strong, but how does that balance against spells? In one turn, my dagger character can now wreak havoc instantly. Why is my caster waiting so long to do the same amount of damage? Or possibly less damage. In RTWP you could interrupt what in turn based is a standard action (though it required very careful timing). That doesn't have to translate perfectly, but we have to make sure whatever is being casted is proportionally worth waiting and having your resource wasted. Is it then worth it to have to wait to cast the spell, forgoing your other actions? Does using one action deny me a spell? Would it instead be better to make spells cost a proportional number of actions? What if I don't have that many actions because my dex is so low? What if I have more than enough actions to cast two or more devestating spells? Etc, etc.
We also have to make sure those standard action attacks are balanced so they're not just spammed immediately and entirely. Maybe the resource cost we have now is enough to balance that, I don't know.
Let's also look at other things besides attacking. Movement? I will probably never have to move that much, but what if I want the option to move around and attack multiple targets? Does my dex/initiative affect that? Does each movement take up an action? Does it work like dash in D&D 5e? How about potion/item use?
What if I want to do nothing? If I end m turn without doing anything, should I get more actions? How much more? Why can't I control where my turn gets delayed to?
And finally, in general, they would have to balance everything with consideration to both it's action time and and recovery time, and I have no idea how much work would have to go into that. The stamina idea seems appropriate for it at first glance, although one glaring problem I just noticed is it doesn't account for concentration/interrupt.
Now, that's a whole lot of balancing, bug checking, and miscellaneous work to be done. If done right, I think it could be really cool, but hoo boy would our dev bois and gurls have their work cut our for them. Or, they could get rid of rounds and have dex determine turn frequency and balance around that. Honestly, I'm fine with either, but I really think one is more realistic than the other for a free game mode.
-
3
-
-
Heavy armor and being slow isn't the best now. If you're to slow on a caster you'll move every other round and be much worse off btw.
Everyone keeps saying rounders combat, that would just be exactly how the normal game mode is, it's not a real inventive idea and seems counter productive to having a round based system.
They need to increse damage either through more actions a round or a flat % increase to allow initiative to be stronger and make combat quicker.
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 than more turns in general. More attacks could work, but that still doesn't fix the problem with all the other things action speed affected. I don't know how a percentage increase would make initiative better if anyone who doesn't have to cast doesn't care about it.
I get that you like rounds, but the game can't turn into 5e-lite. There's just too much built into the game that doesn't work that way, and some things that have to not work that way. If they keep rounds, and if they include multiple actions per turn, so be it, but the basis of those decisions should prioritize balance, not an adherence to a newly introduced mechanic that breaks another one and, more importantly, makes entire builds obsolete.
-
1
-
-
This is a perfect example of how action speed's power gets magnified when you switch from a continuous system to a discreet unit-turn style system. Notice how much easier it is to land spell combo's, area spells and cc? With an ultra low initiative character you not only get more actions, but you can use spells, dmg and cc to deny the enemy their turns and magnify your advantage. You can kill or cc them before they have a chance to do anything to you, before they even defensively buff themselves. Turn-based systems always have the issue that acting first or acting more has a huge power-magnifying effect. Currently going first has its effect mitigated by the fact that encounters have a lot of turns and there are large advantages to ignoring initiative, such as armor, modals, etc.
If we go to lower-initiative = more turns, dexterity and action speed will be even MORE dominant than in RTWP. The rounds mode already seems fairly well balanced except for a few areas where the trade-offs between initiative, damage and defense don't really work anymore, such as light weapons, heavy armor and weapon modals. Some weapons or armor that increased action speed before are now less powerful, that's fine, as there are many more weapons and armor that have become far more useful in this mode with rounds.
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.
Rounds do seem mostly balanced except for one mechanic, but that one mechanic doesn't just buff some builds and nerf others, it nerfs them into the ground. Not to speak in hyberbole. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
-
2
-
-
The thing is the game is already balanced around action speed affecting...action speed. Making this also true in turn based mode isn't going to suddenly make it any more or less overpowered than it is in the real time mode.
The same tradeoffs that apply in real time mode would still apply in turn based mode - armor vs speed, might vs dex, fast weapons doing less damage per action and dual wield having an accuracy and damage penalty (which, by the way, needs to be bumped in Turn based mode anyway since single weapon is hilariously bad in a both-weapons-attack-in-one-action and one-action-per-round world).
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.
-
Yeah I talked to someone about this, the problem is then you're just playing the base game, there is no real difference you may as well just turn on all the pause options.They should look into adding addition auto attacks for martial classes (maybe give light weapons an additional attack) and look at increasing weapon damage as a whole.
Doing "dynamic" initiative is just the base game we already have
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 the same" is more your complaint than a criticism, and while there's value in your feedback that way, it's not reflective of a problem with "dynamic" turns, it's just your preference. That dex, light weapons, and light armor are inherently worse than other options is a problem.
Granted, you can fix that while staying within the limitation of rounds, but by no means is it imperative.
-
5
-
-
It just seems like the path of least resistance to get rid of rounds.
Off the top of my head, you'd want to account for dual wield being both full attacks and higher initiative, but that could be as easily fixed as modifying damage per hit to be lower when dual wielding.
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 valuable. I share the annoyance of another poster that this is the king stat in the base game.
I thought about alternate attacks per turn too and I don't think it would be worth it. Say I wanted to attack with one weapon in particular, I now no longer have agency over it, and having to wait until everyone else attacks is more of an issue on turn based than having to wait for your recovery in real time. Granted, my impression could be wrong, but I think they'd be better off just lowering dual wield damage in exchange for full attacks every turn. Or hell, reverse how dual wield works for turn based: you have lower initiative instead, but full damage two weapon full attacks to make up for it.
Again, this is just my impression, but I think the turnbased system itself inherently devalues action speed. Not by much, but enough. Between your turns, any number of enemies are acting, including using free action abilities, interrupting your casters, etc. The change from reacting to anticipating makes you have to pick and choose your actions more carefully, so even if you can potentially act more often, it's not as immediately necessary. One well timed action becomes much more valuable.
Although now I'm wondering where delaying your turn would fit into all this, if we got rid of rounds. It might not work at all. Or maybe delaying puts you down at half the initiative value It would have been if you chose to move. Just spitballing at this point.
-
They could go a few ways about it like DnD. They could make heavier armors give a penalty to certain skills, stealth, mechanics, sleight of hand, maybe arcana? Going early in the round for applying CC is VERY strong. But if you have something like a pure damage dealer like my assassin / paladin going later in the round after my stealth alpha strike doesnt really harm me at all. Idk, i think people are undervaluing initiative as it is, but it does need a few tweaks.
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 my head, you'd want to account for dual wield being both full attacks and higher initiative, but that could be as easily fixed as modifying damage per hit to be lower when dual wielding.
-
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.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.
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 armor reducing stride, but I don't see too much of a point besidrs incentivizing light armor for characters that need to move around a lot.
-
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 somewhere else as soon as you see a threat coming.
EDIT: Had an afterthought, the initiative solution would also help with combat balances like small and fast weapons not being very worth using, and some encounters taking too long (more frequent attacks = more chances to hit).
-
2
-
-
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 argument that Monk as a "spiritual" class is inherently magical. The argument that a magical element is necessary to make these abilities/classes worthwhile compared to spells/casters assumes magic is gamebreakingly powerful, and that martial abilities don't get much more interesting that variations of "I hit the thing."
That said, the lore already explains that every class is a little bit magical because of soul shenanigans, they all match the flavor of the class, and they feel more like abstractions than like spells most of the time, so to me it's really a non-issue.
Side note, I loathe the assumption that magic inherently makes a character strictly more powerful, rather than more flexible. IMO, the best applications of magic are usually clever and creative, rather than cataclysmic and all-powerful.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
BTW Josh just posted on SA that Sneak Attack scales with power level now.
Now we're cooking with gas. Wonder how and by how much it scales.
-
-
6
-
-
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 easier time surviving, that +30% bonus might end up more useful than +50% since they'd last long enough to apply it throughout the fight.
-
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, they seem kind of split between alpha strikes and applying afflictions (for sneak attack, of course). IMO they seem more worth the guile cost with all of those additional affects; three is still kind of steep, but assuming it stays at three and guile pool increases proportionally, it's not that bad. Again, my concern is with whether or not they'll be useful against those extra tough bosses and enemies.
As for the passives, Slippery Mind stands out as incredibly good, and I like the level 9 ones a lot. The rest is pretty disappointing, especially considering they don't even have a unique level 8 passive. Also, I think they could've squeezed a little more in to help deflection or something. The squish is still real, just a little boost and I would've been happy.
I've got nice things to say about Paladin and Fighter, too, but everyone else pretty much covered it.
-
> Sawyer has come and and officially stated that a single class rogue is currently the lowest DPS melee class in there analytics statistics.
I thought he said it was the opposite when people actually put the Rogue in decent armor?
I don't think you're telling the whole story with respect to this comments on this issue
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.
-
with a plausible deadfire party, our non-min-maxed, human, deadfire raider rogue, were a dps dynamo who were able to almost complete mitigate his armourless squishiness.
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 has no persistent distraction. So use abilities, right? There's the problem again.
It's a party RPG, there's no way you can expect characters to be wholly independent unless you build them specifically to solo (and likely planned with a lot of cheese). I just don't like that the options that should help make rogue more independent when it comes to doing their bread and butter thing, damage, don't make rogue any significant amount more independent. I've had my rogue do great stuff, but had to jump through a good number of hoops to get there, most hoops being salvaging the remains of a plan contingent on rogues having reliable abilities. Might as well just spend all my guile on shadow veil, mortal blow, and the occasional crippling strike for interrupts, because they're at best vaguely useful for anything besides evasion and burst damage right now.
Besides that, we're on the same page. Especially on pirate fashion, need way more puffy shirts.
Help out with a mod?
in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire: Modding (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted
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.AttackBaseComponent, Assembly-CSharp", "KeywordsIDs": [ "f5842f97-b963-40b5-adc2-d69330adcf96" ], "AttackDistance": 2, "MinAttackDistance": 0, "AttackVariationID": "dd5934cf-0e6f-4f4a-8f92-3d3102090e8f", "UseParentEquippableHand": "false", "CastSpeedID": "eacb53e3-6eb5-422a-92ca-99cc883ae4a9", "RecoveryTimeID": "566840d9-1561-4243-8ca7-889df9869847", "OverrideTacticalActionType": "None", "ImpactDelay": 0, "ForcedTarget": "None", "AffectedTargetType": "Hostile", "AffectedTargetConditional": { "Conditional": { "Operator": 0, "Components": [ { "$type": "OEIFormats.FlowCharts.ConditionalCall, OEIFormats", "Data": { "FullName": "Boolean IsKith(Guid)", "Parameters": [ "1a26e100-0000-0000-0000-000000000000" ], "Flags": "", "UnrealCall": "", "FunctionHash": 244467078, "ParameterHash": 1541628044 }, "Not": false, "Operator": 0 } ] } }, "AffectedTargetDeathState": "Alive", "HostilityOverride": "Default", "PushDistance": 0, "FaceTarget": "true", "AccuracyBonus": 0, "PenetrationRating": 7, "DamageData": { "DamageType": "None", "AlternateDamageType": "None", "Minimum": 0, "Maximum": 0, "TacticalMinimumOverride": 0, "TacticalMaximumOverride": 0, "DamageProcs": [] }, "Require****Object": "true", "StatusEffectKeywordsIDs": [], "StatusEffectsIDs": [ "3f0b936a-ce4f-49e7-ad9f-eb193e9cdb99", "000bcede-42ca-4275-a1ee-ddd0d8210803", "a24eb026-29f8-4d71-999e-58a2c6714a89", "27ad5bc6-5722-4248-a21c-60d3560ee9c5" ], "RandomizeStatusEffect": "false", "CanGraze": "false", "CanCrit": "true", "DefendedBy": "Will", "AfflictionsDefendedBy": "None", "AfflictionApplicationModifier": "None", "SubstituteHitVisualEffect": "", "VisualEffects": [], "AttackOnImpactID": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000", "ExtraAttackID": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000", "LaunchBone": "RightWeapon", "HitBone": "Chest", "OnHitShakeDuration": "None", "OnHitShakeStrength": "None", "NoiseLevelID": "15743f94-1026-40b0-8e13-a667b3f66f63", "AllReactNoise": "false", "InterruptsOn": "None", "InterruptType": "Normal", "TargetAngle": 0, "ApplyOnceOnly": "false", "PathsToTarget": "true", "HideFromCombatLog": "false", "AdditionalAttackOnTooltip": "false", "DoesNotApplyDamage": "false", "TreatAsWeapon": "false", "BounceData": { "Bounces": 0, "Multiplier": 0.5, "Range": 10, "InRangeOrder": "false", "NoRepeatTargets": "false", "AlwaysBounceAtEnemies": "false", "Delay": 0, "NeverBounce": "false" }, "AttackValidityConditional": { "Conditional": { "Operator": 0, "Components": [] } } }, { "$type": "Game.GameData.AttackMeleeComponent, Assembly-CSharp", "EngagementRadius": 1, "IsUnarmed": "false" } ] },And here's what I changed it to
{ "$type": "Game.GameData.AttackMeleeGameData, Assembly-CSharp", "DebugName": "Roguish_Charm_Melee", "ID": "6d5e0938-1ad8-4b14-b977-c1170fb370ef", "Components": [ { "$type": "Game.GameData.AttackBaseComponent, Assembly-CSharp", "KeywordsIDs": [ "f5842f97-b963-40b5-adc2-d69330adcf96" ], "AttackDistance": 2, "MinAttackDistance": 0, "AttackVariationID": "dd5934cf-0e6f-4f4a-8f92-3d3102090e8f", "UseParentEquippableHand": "false", "CastSpeedID": "eacb53e3-6eb5-422a-92ca-99cc883ae4a9", "RecoveryTimeID": "566840d9-1561-4243-8ca7-889df9869847", "OverrideTacticalActionType": "None", "ImpactDelay": 0, "ForcedTarget": "None", "AffectedTargetType": "Hostile", "AffectedTargetConditional": { "Conditional": { "Operator": 0, "Components": [ ] } }, "AffectedTargetDeathState": "Alive", "HostilityOverride": "Default", "PushDistance": 0, "FaceTarget": "true", "AccuracyBonus": 0, "PenetrationRating": 7, "DamageData": { "DamageType": "None", "AlternateDamageType": "None", "Minimum": 0, "Maximum": 0, "TacticalMinimumOverride": 0, "TacticalMaximumOverride": 0, "DamageProcs": [] }, "Require****Object": "true", "StatusEffectKeywordsIDs": [], "StatusEffectsIDs": [ "3f0b936a-ce4f-49e7-ad9f-eb193e9cdb99", "000bcede-42ca-4275-a1ee-ddd0d8210803", "a24eb026-29f8-4d71-999e-58a2c6714a89", "27ad5bc6-5722-4248-a21c-60d3560ee9c5" ], "RandomizeStatusEffect": "false", "CanGraze": "false", "CanCrit": "true", "DefendedBy": "Will", "AfflictionsDefendedBy": "None", "AfflictionApplicationModifier": "None", "SubstituteHitVisualEffect": "", "VisualEffects": [], "AttackOnImpactID": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000", "ExtraAttackID": "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000", "LaunchBone": "RightWeapon", "HitBone": "Chest", "OnHitShakeDuration": "None", "OnHitShakeStrength": "None", "NoiseLevelID": "15743f94-1026-40b0-8e13-a667b3f66f63", "AllReactNoise": "false", "InterruptsOn": "None", "InterruptType": "Normal", "TargetAngle": 0, "ApplyOnceOnly": "false", "PathsToTarget": "true", "HideFromCombatLog": "false", "AdditionalAttackOnTooltip": "false", "DoesNotApplyDamage": "false", "TreatAsWeapon": "false", "BounceData": { "Bounces": 0, "Multiplier": 0.5, "Range": 10, "InRangeOrder": "false", "NoRepeatTargets": "false", "AlwaysBounceAtEnemies": "false", "Delay": 0, "NeverBounce": "false" }, "AttackValidityConditional": { "Conditional": { "Operator": 0, "Components": [] } } }, { "$type": "Game.GameData.AttackMeleeComponent, Assembly-CSharp", "EngagementRadius": 1, "IsUnarmed": "false" } ] },Getting the feeling that it's something obvious and I'm just dumb and/or making a rookie mistake