[Instant Death]

In a world of prismatic spray, black blade of disaster, chain lightning, fly, stoneskin, anti magic shell, bigby's crushing grasp, tenser's transformation, and god knows what else I would hope the lack of death magic has little to no impact on how you approach a fight with a powerful caster.  There are a million ways to kill a character that are far more effective and way harder to stop than "power word kill".

Thus the inclusion of death spells, by your own admission, do not negatively impact combat as a whole. Therefore, by arguing for their removal you're simply asking for... LESS. Literally. You're asking game developers to remove some player options that used to exist.

 

At face value, this doesn't seem to be a bad thing, since a case CAN be made (and you've made it on this thread) that stripping away the redundant stuff typically only *helps* a game. But the core of this argument is super detrimental to the Genre as a whole. Dangerous even. It can lead to boring, constricting, soulless games. I can use your argument to ask for severe weapon variety limitations (for example). After all, Why have 4 different types of blunt weapons for the player to choose from, when a game can make due with just one type? I mean, think about it. Does a mace *truly* add anything new to combat that a warhammer doesn't? Is warrior's tactical combat approach going to be any different if he's using a mace than if he uses a warhammer?

 

Hmm?

 

Taking instant death out of the game doesn't actually effect how you tactically approach a powerful caster at all does it?  So if it only encourages a forced pre buff for no other reason than "just in case they cast that", and degenerate gameplay if they do and you aren't protected...  I don't think the game really suffers for it's absence.  It is just one less boring buff for me to waste time casting.

See, this is why I dislike discussions where everything hinges on the examples I've been asked to give. You're wrong here. Flat out wrong. Instant-Death can have a HUGE impact on both combat and the game. Even putting aside the potential narrative/story mutations that a good writer can create, instant, luck-based Death in combat can directly contribute to the tactical gameplay and combat drama itself. Josh Sawyer DODGES this very point whenever someone brings it up. He flat out Refuses to acknoledge the fact that often times, players will NOT reload when one of their party members dies. Instead, they will do the opposite. They'll further immerse themselves in a game's wonderful, strategic, tactical combat, and when they suffer a loss (say, their mage gets insta-killed in the middle of battle) They will NOT just reload. They will NOT 'save scum". They will meet the Fight's challenge head on. They will adjust their tactics on the fly. They will try and figure out how to win that encounter without their mage!<sheesh>

 

Dear Josh Sawyer: Please stop focussing on 'degenerate' gamers and their degenerate gameplay. Focus on the rest of us instead. The *REAL* RPG fans. Please? Thanks.

 

You ask me why I want insta-death spells in a game. THAT is why. Because I *WANT* combat to be an unforgiving, uncushioned challenge without arbitrary limitations. I *WANT* to be faced with the uncertainty that the luck of a dice roll symbolizes. When I get through a tough encounter, I *WANT* to be able to say that I faced death repeatedly and survived. By pushing for the removal of instant death spells, that's all you're doing: removing a very *successful* element of fear and chance.

 

That said I actually got real tired of the end game of BG2, because it became less about tactical fights and it became more "counter the mage: the game".  Too bad countering the mage was all combat ever boiled down to a lot of the time at that point.

Sure, there's been a lot of criticism of BG2's overly mage-centric approach to encounter design. It's a topic for a different discussion though.

[Instant Death]

So yeah, just like every other ability or attack that takes all planning out of the equation I don't like Maze either.

What?

 

Maze does not take planning out of the equation. It's a spell with a non-lethal, non-physically harming temporary effect used to delay a threat for a short period of time. It's essentially no different than any other Disable. I never bothered using it in BG2 (the only IE game that had it) because it was next to worthless when compared to the other 8th level spells (why bother with a harmless delaying spell when you could, instead, take a spell like Abi Dhalzim's Horrid Wilting and just nuke the entire battlefield with something that will do 70-80 points of damage to EVERY ENEMY AT ONCE.)

 

However, that doesn't mean that it can't be used as the very centerpoint of any game plan that is based on either phases or timing.  For example: you're in a boss battle and you're kicking his ass, then suddenly, He summons a nasty, spell-casting minion out of the blue. Normally, this could be a game changer; a complete turning point in the fight. But, you can use Maze to get that Summon out of the way for a few rounds so that you can continue to focus on the Boss, possibly kill him and then be ready to take on his summon in full force when it comes back from its extra-dimensional prison thing.

 

Also it isn't me who is deliberately missing the point.  Take instant death out.  Get rid of it.  Now... I want you to tell me how you approach a fight with a high level caster knowing that he has no instant death attacks.  Not maze, not power word kill, not anything like that.

 

You have your plan?

 

Okay.

 

Now assume he has power word kill.

 

Has your plan actually changed in any significant way?

Maybe, maybe not. The first thing that usually pops into an experienced player's mind when he faces a powerful mage is: Ok, I'm going to need to pad my health and my resistances, since mages are known to shoot off spells that do a lot more damage than a sword swing. And that's just the defensive part of the thinking process. The offensive is a little more variable, but there are the unchanging basics: All mages have the same achilles heel(s). 1)If you silence them, they're as good as dead. 2)if you disrupt their spells, they cannot harm you. So you go from there. If you succeed in #1 or #2 then it won't matter at all what spell he's got ready to toss your way.

 

And if you don't, your own defense (padding your health) will be good enough to defend against Power Word: Kill.

 

Do you understand what I'm saying now.

Not really, no. It seems like you're trying to argue that Insta-death spells are some weird thing in a combat that stick out like a sore thumb. But the fact of the matter is that they, invariably, only rear their ugly heads at the high levels, when your party and your enemies already have a bajillion tools at their disposal. Thus, they do not affect game balance, nor do they impact combat enough to render it untactical. They're merely another tool.

 

Their Beauty and value though, as something that keeps even good players on their toes (fear of death will do that), cannot be understated.

[Instant Death]

I want instant death spells of various power. the lower teir ones should start at the mid level range, with players and enemies acquring them around level 12. These spells should be limited in what they can kill... say... targets of up to 10th level in power.

 

After that, Insta death spells should become increasingly more powerful. at 15th level, each spell-casting class should have access to at least one insta-death spell that can kill any mortal creature of any level.

 

At 20th level+ the cataclysmic, "game changer" stuff should become avaliable. They should come with long casting times, and they should induce fatigue on the caster (like haste does in the IE games). If they're single target, then this target should be forced to make a saving throw with a significant penalty, to drive the point home that this spell is more powerful, and more useful, than its 15th level variant. If the spell is an AOE effect, then no save penalty, but a large area of effect.

 

I'd also be alright with various creature specific death spells. Such as Undeath to death (spell that insta-kills undead), or Elemental expulsion (spells that will insta-kill elementals, or magically conjured creatures.)

 

 

As for non spells. Yes, I most definitely support death-based traps. And I'd support giving Monks some love. Their pinnacle ability should be a once-per-day quivering palm-like power. And Cyphers should get something like that too. Perhaps a power that can terrify an opponent's mind and cause a heart attack (think Phantasmal Killer).

 

Weapons- I'm not so much in favor of fusing insta-death effects on weapons. The beauty of magic weapons should be in their debilitating effects. Think poison, bleeding, slowing, stunning, holding. Stuff like that.

 

 

And I don't want something as an resistance check, because your tactic has to fail until the flash of green light comes.

A good system allows for manipulation of those resistance checks. IWD2 did this marvelously. You could "soften up" your target's ability to resist by first casting spells like doom, malison, Prayer and bane (all stackable.) Then when the target's saves are in the negatives, you unleash your finger of death.... and he dies.

[Update #54: Art Update - Work IS in Progress!]

Lastly, specifically for you Sensuki.  The first major forum uproar happened when Sawyer said there would be no experience from combat because they wanted to design a game that did not encourage degenerate gameplay such as killing everyone you could just because it got you the most EXP.  He even said many objectives in the game could be completed without any combat at all.  At one point they apparently actually played with the idea of making it possible to beat the entire game with no combat.  I don't think they went that route, but they thought about it. 

 

That should tell you something about how "combat focused" the game really is.

This says nothing about how combat-focussed the game is going to be. All this tells us is that PE will give you tons of choices/options for conflict resolution. Don't forget, there's going to be a friggin 15 level mega dungeon in this game. It will probably contain enough combat on its own to render the entire game "combat oriented".

 

So no. Don't confuse the two concepts. They're different.

[Instant Death]

Ooh! "The Tactics is" game. I'll play!

 

-Tactics is camoflaging or otherwise rendering invisible your party members who have low saves when in the presense of a powerful mage or other deadly, spell slinging opponent who can kill you with one spell.

 

-Tactics is silencing that mage at the very outset of an encounter.

 

-Tactics is dazing that mage, or stunning that mage, or blinding that mage, or deafening that mage or Holding that mage, Or even directly engaging that mage in a spell battle, where he's forced to focus on counter/defensive spells, instead of the nasty offensive stuff he or his AI had been planning to toss at you.

 

-Tactics is surrounding that mage with summons, so that if he does cast Disentigrate, it will be at them, not your party.

 

-Tactics can even involve willingly sending your most useless party member to engage that mage in the hopes that the mage will waste his nastier spells on him instead of your vital-to-winning, big players.

 

-In the meantime, other gameplay tactics include keeping an eye out for scrolls, wands or other magics that can Raise dead party members, you know, just in case your tactics don't succeed as planned.

 

But this is all falling on deaf ears. It's been more than a half a decade since an RPG came around that allowed for such refreshingly *good* tactical combat. I bet you're absolutely giddy about that too. You and your Xbox Live Friends. <gag>

[Instant Death]

A lock is either locked or unlocked. if you're comparing it to single enemy ability, then that would mean the dungeon has a whole bunch of abilities to use against you at one time. But, the chest's only ability is "be locked."

 

There is nothing dynamic about opening a chest.

First off, False. A chest may be locked. Or it may be trapped. Or, trapped and locked. Or, Guarded, Trapped, and locked. Or hidden, Guarded, trapped or locked. Moreover, there may be more than one Chest in a Dungeon. A dungeon may have several chests. Some Trapped and locked, some just locked. Some guarded and locked. Some Guarded trapped and locked. Some Hidden and locked. Etc. The point remains.

 

As for your moronic new claim that there's nothing dynamic about opening a chest... Yeah, OK. I would love nothing more than to invite you to my kitchen table for a D&D session that I DM. I promise you that within 1 hour, you will be singing a different tune. You will fear Mimics. You will lament the absense of a good Rogue. You will learn to take great pains in employing team synergy.

 

 

You don't face a whole dungeon at once. You just face one chest. Just like you only face one combat encounter at a time. However many enemies there are in it, you can't just leisurely decide to only kill HALF the enemies, then just keep going.

Oh I would never suggest that one liesurely do anything. But I beg to differ with your nonsensical point here. If I've got a party full of high level casters, they sure as hell CAN decide to kill half the enemies with their death spells. That would be their choice, due to the full range of combat options avaliable to them. Of course, after they're done doing this, they can then decide to kill the other half with Summons, And if that doesn't work, they can then pull out the heavy fire power and just Fry the survivors with their acid storms, and Meteor Swarms. Or hell, they may decide to just make themselves invisible and non-detectable and avoid 100% of all enemies in that dungeon.

 

Man, A few pages ago I swore to ignore you when you lapse into your stream of consciousness, but Now I'm actually enjoying the ride.

 

 

Here's where you're wrong, though, with your "if one roll doesn't resolve the conflict, then that's no different from Slay Orc failing to kill the orc." What does Slay Orc do? What are the only 2 possible outcomes of Slay Orc? That it A) successfully strikes the Orc, and ends that one conflict of the Orc being a living thing trying to murder your face, OR B) it fails to strike the Orc, and literally nothing happens at all. I already addressed this. Nothing but one of those 2 things can ever happen.

This is the Second time you have committed an error due to ignorance of the rules you're trying to argue the logic/illogic of. And I'm done correcting you. Please fire up your browser, google D&D Finger of Death, and READ ITS DESCRIPTION.

 

Then come back and apologise for making the FALSE claim that "literally nothing happens" when the victim makes his save.

 

 

The simple fact that a standard attack (ANY attack that isn't an insta-death effect) has at least 3 potential outcomes, rather than just 2

Nope, there's only 2 outcomes. Either the hit opponent survives, or he doesn't. A "hurt" opponent still lives. And a living opponent does not constitute a resolution to the conflict, unless the conflict itself is: force this guy to surrender. And if it is, then there's still only 2 outcomes: 1) surrender, 2) don't.

 

 

 

Riddle me this, Stun-man... how does that not make sense? Tell me how that is false.

It's not that it doesn't make sense, my pointlessly long-winded buddy, it's that it's an utterly ignorant and wholely erroneous interpretation and application of the combat system we are discussing. You simply don't know what you're talking about. You've never played the IE games and, and as a result, you don't know how their mechanics work, and this FACT is repeatedly hurting you in this discussion

 

 

 

Unless one of those is an ability to negate all other tools at his disposal.

Death spells do not negate ALL tools at a target's disposal. A mage can still use many different spells to counter or neutralize a Death spell cast at him. A fighter may use potions to do the same. A rogue may use his Stealth skills.... etc.

 

Stop making false claims.

 

 

Oh, well, in that case, why don't we have Mass Death spells?

 

So, why don't we have group-insta-death spells, hmm?

We do. They exist. And they exist in the IE games.

 

Lephys, I cannot have an intelligent debate on this subject if my opponent is coming in here completely ignorant to the very subject he's attempting to debate.

 

I point to the Infinity Engine games. Classics. All-time classics that have caused tens of thousands of Backers to flock to project Eternity's kickstarter at their very mention. Combat in those games was SUPERB. SUPERB because (or despite) the fact that all these insta-death effect spells were there, usable by your party, your opponents, and Traps in dungeons.

 

Explain to us why this is, if you really believe that what you are saying is right.

 

 

 

Well, disentigrate and finger of death can, in fact, half-kill their targets.

...Thereby taking the "insta" right out of the "death."

 

Nope. Instant death still occurs if he fails his save.

[Instant Death]

So, let's look at all of combat's potentiality.

LOL ok, Lets!

 

You cannot logically (or honestly) look at combat potentiality while at the same time argue vociferously to LIMIT it.

 

Death spells ADD to the whole. Nowhere, in any system that features death spells, is a player forced to forgo standard, tactical, run of the mill combat. To hit scores, HP pools, tactical positioning, dodging, missing, quaffing potions, Armor classes, saving throw penalties and bonusses, stealth, fire, ice, immunities, vunerabilities, etc. NONE OF THAT IS TAKEN AWAY simply because the developers decided that Finger of Death will be included on the list of 7th level Mage and cleric spells.

[Instant Death]

I especially like the "just because you saved against a Bodak's Death gaze does not mean you suddenly won the entire encounter against the Bodak and his minions" line, since you're literally reinforcing my point while failing to realize what my point was.. Assuming parameter size for conflicts? You were comparing the potential effects of an insta-death spell, in combat, to unlocking a locked object!

The scope is the same. A lock on a chest is to the entire dungeon, what a specific enemy ability is to the entire encounter. The point stands.

 

The point wasn't that combat always has a set parameter size. The point was that a locked object always has a set parameter size.

And so does an emeny's insta-death attack. It will always have a set perameter size (ie. it's just one power). The. Point. Stands.

 

Then you went all "OMG, plenty of things in cRPGs are binary! Like lockpicking!" So then I said "Uhh, there's more to combat than there is to lockpicking.

Nope. Conceptually there isn't. And non-conceptually, it would most definitely depend on the complexity of the lockpicking system vis a vis the combat system. You can give a mage a "Knock" spell that allows him to instantly open a locked chest, conversely, you can impose nervousness states on a rogue to hurt his chances of using his steady hands to open that locked chest. You can do away with the lock mechanic outright by making all locks bashable by any character class who holds a weapon in their hands.

 

But the end result is still the same in all systems: You have a locked chest. You either succeed in unlocking it, or you fail to unlock it. That is Binary...

 

You'd have to look at a whole area filled with pickable locks and other forms of skill checks or capability factors." Then YOU responded with "LOLZ! Why are you even worrying about MULTIPLE locks when we could just be talking about one lock? Oh, also, just because one roll occurs DOES NOT mean that a conflict ends there!"

Correct. By defintion of conflict resolution, if one roll does not end the conflict, then that just means that the conflict has not been resolved. If that roll suceeds, then it has. But you're not saying anything here. Save or Die works exactly the same way. If I cast Slay Living on an Orc and he makes his save, then I have not resolved the conflict. If he fails his save, then I have.

 

As for your multiple locks retort.... If there's more than one lock, then obviously there's more than one conflict. Similarly, in combat if there's more than one opponent then there's more than one conflict. Not sure what your point is.

 

 

If you'd stop staring into your own point like it's the sun, maybe you'd see mine for what it is.

 

Each and every fight shouldn't have a set number of steps, correct? You would agree? Since you proposed it would be ridiculous for me to argue otherwise, I'll have to assume you would agree. Okay. I'm going to supply you with two specific examples here, since I can't give you an example with absolutely no specific parameters. Yes, the parameters could be different from these, and they could also be these.

 

You get to a fight that just so happens to only require one hit. You have one character, and there's one enemy. As long as you don't refrain from any offensive tactic whatsoever, you slay the thing in one step. It's a rat. You swing, dice roll determines what happens, you kill it. How many times you miss is irrelevant in this context, because that's true of ANYthing. In other words, whether or not you use a sword, or an insta-death spell has no bearing on the potential for you to miss. Okay, you killed it with one sword hit (regardless of how many misses). Okay, now you get to an enemy that's tougher. It's an orc. Ooooh, this guy has more hitpoints and armor, etc. It just so happens that, based on your sword power and his armor and HP, that it's going to take you 8 sword hits (regardless of however many misses) to fell him.

 

Now, rewind, and let's do the same thing again with an insta-death spell. The rat? Takes 1 hit, because insta-death always kills when it hits. The orc? Takes 1 hit, because insta-death never doesn't kill. Now... in which scenario (with insta-deat, or without insta-death) did we see the greatest RANGE of combat parameter/step sizes?

The Range/Size of the combat perameter will always be larger if one has more tools at his disposal. In your example though, it remains undefined. Since I could, if I wanted to, decide to NOT WASTE my 9th level Wail of the Banshee spell on a rat. Or an Orc. Even if I've got multiple copies of it in the ready. I could get creative and just cast a low level poison spell on the orc, then just sit back and watch him die slowly. Or I could focus-fire my entire party of warriors on him and kill him in one or 2 rounds. OR..... I could cast one of my death spells and eliminate him right away. or I could just turn my party invisible and slip past that orc and his entire camp.

 

That's correct... the one without insta-death.

False. Faulty Logic. Assumes having an instant death spell in your arsenal means it must be used in place of a different tactical approach and cannot be used in tandum with one. If we had a spell system where there's only Death spells in it, I would totally agree with every single one of your arguments on this thread. But since I've never seen a system like that, what we see here from you is one giant, perpetual straw man. Death spells are not a substitute to tactical combat. They are an ADDITION to it. This has been MY argument since my very first post on this thread. You have repeatedly IGNORED IT, as evidenced right here.

 

 

Because factors such as armor, HP, and ability effectiveness were not steamrolled by the design of an ability that ignores such things all together.

Bullsh*t. Slay living, Destruction, and vorpal blades require their users to score a hit in combat in order for those effects to occur. Power Word Kill is 100% dependent on the amount of health a target has. Armor itself can bestow saving throw bonusses and other resistances to assist its wearer in surviving against a Save or Die spell. A rogues reflexes can help him evade spells cast at him. etc. etc.

 

Yeah, Confirmed now. You've never played the IE games. You don't know what the F*** you're talking about.

 

 

I'm just trying to use as many of your own words as possible, here, since it would seem mine are no good. You don't see the difference, because you can't "half-unlock" a locked chest. Then, logically, according to you, it must be fact that an insta-death spell can, in fact, half-kill someone.

Well, disentigrate and finger of death can, in fact, half-kill their targets.

 

But you're missing the point. It is my argument that both lockpicking and save or die are equally "binary".

 

 

 

Hmm... Well, let's see, off the top of my head, there's "You haven't even convinced me to even consider releasing the prisoner," then some amount of "Okay, I'm actually considering releasing the prisoner because of your excellently-chosen words, but you still fail to actually fully convince me to release the prisoner,"

Yep. The result of both of these is that he hasn't released the prisoner. The conflict still exists. Therefore, the persuader has still failed.

 

followed by, at some point there, "you've not only gotten me to consider more options than merely 'kill the prisoner,' but you've eventually led me to the decision that releasing the prisoner would be a good idea."

The pass-fail, binary nature of speech skills, as I have described them, do not rule any of this out. In every single level of the d20 system in D&D (as well as the infinity engine games), there is ALWAYS room for creative writing and "consolation prizes" (what you are describing). But these do not change the system. If you need a 50+ to pass a persuade check, then a 49 means you failed to resolve the conflict then and there. It is then up to the DM or the writers to decide whether your "close but no cigar" means something (or not) later on, after this point.

 

This is no different than Save or Die. I already gave you my Centaur example. It's the same concept. I failed my save, and paid the consequences, but because I was powerful, and my party members were smart, I still won in the end.

[Update #54: Art Update - Work IS in Progress!]

 

Let me quote myself.

 

Where in that statement do you see "Take the combat log out of the game!", "There is no reason to use the combat log!", or "The combat log serves no purpose!"?

 

If you see any of those things in that quote I need you to stop and read it again. Keep doing that until you actually read what it says, not what you want it to say. Cause I pretty much said "I expect the combat log to be in game and understand why people use it."

 

LOL

 

 

HP changes are going to be pretty obvious on screen since the UI will have HP bars.

 

Also I know asking is a waste of time, but why does knowing you rolled a 3 on and attack and missed matter?  A miss is a miss, knowing you missed because of RNG doesn't make it any less of a miss.  Nor do you need the log to "detect" RNG.  Missing 15 attacks in a row isn't RNG, it's you are outmatched by your enemy. 

 

I also can't think of even one reason why you would want to know specifically how much HP you lost 5 rounds ago in a quasi real time game with pause.  Either you need to do something to heal... or you don't.  Knowing that 5 rounds ago you took 10 stamina damage from a wizards magic bolt makes no difference.  You could argue you are trying to determine who the bigger threat is but again... three normal looking bandits and one guy in the back with a staff that has flames coming off it... I don't really need a combat log to tell who the biggest threat is.

 

Lastly, I really don't care whose name is in the credit list as long as the game is good and isn't BG 1990 edition with new graphics.

Completely proves true all of the things I said in the other post, hello casual gamer. You are part of the cancer that is killing current RPGs.

 

Can I just requote this because of its sexiness?

 

I escaped the hopeless black hole known as the Bioware Social network circa 2013, only to have it follow me here. I'll ask again. Who are these people?

 

-YES, Karkarov, I *do* what to know what I rolled to miss. Especially when we're dealing with a complex combat system where multiple and varied bonusses and penalties are being applied to my rolls.

 

-YES, Karkarov, I *do* care to see exactly how much damage, down to the single digit, I'm doing at all times.

 

-YES, Karkarov, I *am* one of those freaks who believes that Reading is an essential life skill and that those who don't know how to read, or don't like reading should not be playing RPGs in the first place, thus there's no need to design RPGs for such people.

 

-YES, Karkarov, I *am* one of those people who uses a combat log for more than just determining who's "doing more damage". I *am* one of those people who understands the subtle things in a decent combat system, which a combat log can show, such as attacks of opportunity when they happen, or minor penalties incurred from using your bow in close quarters. Stuff like that (good luck getting such info on the main screen!)

 

<gag>

 

TLDR: It's not up to Karkarov to decide what *WE* think is useless and what we don't.

 

PS: Contrary to your repeated meanderings and silly attempts at hyperbole, Baldurs Gate did not come out in 1990.

[Instant Death]

I'm slightly surprised that people seem to think that instant-death spells have only 1 counter (e.g. death-ward-like spells).

 

Here are a few others.

 

Interrupt the spell with damage

Kill the caster before instant-death spell is cast

Silence the caster

 

Regarding Lephys' point about the trip back to town being an inconvenience, remember that the necromancer who so rudely killed one of your party wasn't trying to inconvenience you. He was trying to kill you. If he was merely partially successful then congratulations, you won. Maybe next time you find a similar situation you might be able to do it without the inconvenience of the trip back to town to resurrect your fallen comrade.

 

You're arguing against "you die or you don't" mechanics but saying that you want "you win or you don't" fights.

 

One of my pet hates in party-based-games is that, at the end of a fight, everybody just gets up & dusts themselves down then carries on. I don't even care that it's not realistic (hell, this is fantasy), I care that it's not dramatic.

 

CRPGs are an extension of table-top RPGs and it was the old IE games that best replicated this experience which is why so many of us stumped up the cash to see PE become reality. I can only really speak for myself though I suspect I'm not alone in saying that I'm bored of games that make it all easy for me. I want a game that is hard, that forces me to think & re-think my tactics. A game that  doesn't let me "get away with it" if I charge into a room without a plan. A game that punishes me if I don't make good tactical decisions.

 

A recent example of a game that did all this was the X-Com remake but there aren't many others that spring to mind. I want a game with harsh consequences, I want to be forced to think.

 

Basically, I want the developers to create an EASYMODE for people who don't want a challenge and then focus on making a good game for the rest of us!

Indeed.

[Instant Death]

So am I to infer, from your examples, that the *best* way to implement Death spells would be to just give them a variety of effects based on the recipiant's save/skill score?

 

 

For example: Lets "fix" Finger of Death to make it less "binary"

 

If the target's save score is:

 

<10 - he dies a *true* death and cannot be ressurected

10-50 - He dies a standard death, but can be raised.

51-75 - He saves and lives but is Stunned for 5 rounds

76-100 - He saves and suffers no ill effects.

 

 

Sure, I'd be alright with that, since the *spirit* and point of the spell is still there in all its glory. But somehow, I doubt Lephys would approve of it (even though we've just removed all semblance of "BINARY!"). Nope. he'll still be against it, because you can still die. (boo hoo, heaven forbid.)

[Instant Death]

I love how it's now "so-called." Would you at least please make up your mind? First, it IS binary, but that's okay, because look at all the other stuff that's binary! But ALSO, you're not even sure what I'm referring to is binary?

I say "so-called" because even the claim (yours) that save-or-die is binary is a matter of dispute, As I have already demonstrated on this thread. There are at least a dozen factors that can influece the success/failure of any Save or die spell, trap, power or skill in the IE games as well as in tabletop. And when I say "factors", I don't just mean "prevent that mage from casting it!" or "put up a death ward!". I mean *true* tactical factors... the same kind that one would use to dodge a barbarian's Power attack, or to evade a cleric's flame strike.

 

I'm saying nothing new here, Lephys. This is precely the same argument you ignored a page or two ago.

 

 

You're missing the point, and taking things out of context. You wanna compare what I said to lockpicking? All right. You're in a dungeon with 15 locks. It's you versus the dungeon. When you select your Rogue and click on a door, he tries to pick the lock, and a roll takes place, based upon his lockpick skill. If that succeeds, do you instantly "defeat" the dungeon?

Terrible analogy. Assumes the size parameters for a conflict. Perameters that have not been made with regards to save or die spells in your previous arguments. For example, just because you saved against a Bodak's Death gaze, does not mean you suddenly won the entire encounter against the Bodak and his minions. It doesn't even mean you defeated the Bodak itself. It simply means you were presented with a specific challenge (his Gaze attack), and you got through it. (more about this below, since you actually try to address this point)

 

 

Let's warp back to combat, shall we? Before you say "BUT ONE ENEMY IS LIKE ONE DOOR, NOT A WHOLE DUNGEON!" please hear me out. In combat, facing a single enemy with a single character, you try to attack, so you make an attack roll, based upon your weapon/fighting skill. Let's say it hits. Okay, it hit. Is the thing dead? Well, you don't know yet. How much damage did you do? For the sake of looking at usual combat, let's say it takes at least a few hits to take down this foe. Okay, so one roll has occurred, and you hit it. It's still not defeated. Maybe you cast a spell, or use an ability. Another roll! Now it's rooted in-place for 3 seconds. Guess what? You still haven't won. Now your attack rolls get boosted because it can't use footwork to dodge. So, you run around behind it (since it can't turn around), and you roll to strike it in the back. Well, now, since your rolls are so much better, you easily land a critical blow to the spine, dealing 20 damage instead of 12. And it had 15 hitpoints left, so one more regular attack wouldn't have killed it, but, one more critical strike to the spine (that you just set up for) did actually kill it. Add to this the fact that it's been hitting you the whole time, and the possibility that, if you had taken the time to strike it TWICE more with normal attacks, it would've had time to hit you the last time it needed to kill you, and you've got the dynamics of combat factors. Yay! NOW you've won!

Yep. This is the Same argument you made before. So I'll give the same response. Unless you're going to argue that each and every fight should have a set number of steps, including hitting, then hitting again, then again. And that EVERY encounter, against EVERY enemy should be an exercise in incrimental whittling-down of health from Full to zero (and what a DULL, one dimensional system that would be!), your point does. not. stand.

 

Save or die.... is not a mechanic that dictates all combat. It doesn't in D&D, it doesn't in the IE games, or any other system it has ever existed in. Instead, it is a rare, elite-level tool acquireable by some high level casters, some extrordinary monsters, and a minimal # of artifact-level weapons and items. It is an extra dimension to combat. It is designed to promote fear in even *good* players (Fear: something very easily lost/forgotten in a game where the DULL system you're promoting is being used; where every fight is nothing more than a game of checkers (can't suddenly lose at the very beginning because, you know, you still got too many pieces on the board!)

 

You are blowing this out of proportion and giving us scenarios that did not commonly occur with Save or Die in the Infinity engine games, which again, makes me wonder if you played them.

 

 

Do you not see how far off picking a lock is from facing an enemy?

Nope. I don't. Because the differences are not relevant to what we're discussing. A Rogue who's faced with a locked chest will either 1) suceed in unlocking it, or 2)fail to unlock it. Period. Those are the only two options. There is no "half-unlock". Is this not *exactly* the "binary" you're arguing against?

 

And again, the fact that failing to unlock the chest leaves the rogue still alive (or whatever) is not relevant, since No one here is arguing that Locks should be governed by an "Unlock or Die" system, or that locks should be trying to "dodge" your lockpicks. lol

 

And Speech? Speech isn't even binary, unless it's terribly implemented. "Oh, you have a skill of 50? Now you have jedi mind tricks. Skill of 49? You can't even persuade this person to so much as hear you out." Yup, that's about as much fun as simplistic insta-death.

I've yet to see a better working alternative. If you need a persuade score of 50 or more to successfully convince a kidnapper to hand over his prisoner, a score of 49 or less means you simply failed to convince him. What's the alternative? He gives you half the prisoner back since you were "close enough"?

[Instant Death]

I wouldn't compare skills like lock picking and trap disarming to actual combat. They play only a minor role in games, and are something the player doesn't want to concern himself with too much. Combat on the other hand, is a major element of the game.

You're stating an opinion as fact. We are discussing conflicts/conflict resolutions in RPGs. And the masses are NOT a monolithic entity with regards to which specific conflicts they want to see more or less of. This is why People love Planescape Torment (Conversation heavy but combat light), and Icewind dale (combat heavy, conversation light) and Baldurs Gate (coversation, combat, and trap heavy. Nothing light. Seriously, there's practically an EXACTLY equal distribution of traps vs. enemies in Durlag's tower for example, and many people here have called it the greatest cRPG dungeon experience ever)

 

But this all misses the point. Lephy's gripe was the so-called Binary Nature of Save-or-Die. My examples are just there to prove that the entire conflict-resolution system in classic RPGs is fueled by this binary nature, yet he doesn't seem to have a problem with anything else... just save or die.

[Instant Death]

Honestly, a really good rule of thumb with anything in a complex combat system like this is to avoid any situation that can be reduced to a single reactive tactic. "If you see one of these, do this." In other words, "Make sure you cast 'Silence' on that necromancer" is not a good implementation, really. You're saying "How do you deal with that insta-death spell? Make sure it doesn't get cast." Or "Make sure you cast protection from insta-Death" or something. You've just countered an all-or-nothing effect with another all-or-nothing effect. You've doubled the amount of binary tactics in your combat system.

This is just silly reasoning.

 

It goes against Just about all decent RPG mechanics. Like speech skills, trap disarming, lock picking and summoning mechanics to name just a few. All of these are strictly pass-fail in their natures and all of them have a single, one-step, Act-react process.

 

Additionally, your "logic" forces a one dimensional spell system where the spells themselves are unimaginitive and essentially no different than standard weapon attacks with shiny colors.

 

No friggin thanks. If I want what you're peddling, I'll just go play Skyrim, or Dragon Age. Or Witcher 2.

[Update #54: Art Update - Work IS in Progress!]

As for IE games. No, I do not want BG3. I want a modern 2013-2014 RPG made by the people who made BG that uses modern technology and a fresh design to make something that is in the same spirit and style but progressive and new at the same time.

Worthlessly Vague statement is worthlessly vague.

 

Please describe, in your own opinion, exactly what the "spirit and style" of the IE games is.

[Update #54: Art Update - Work IS in Progress!]

.....

Nice try.

 

As for how can all this be done?  Actually quite easy, sound effects, visual effects, character reactions.  When a guy hits you and your character makes an "oof" sort of sound effect and sort of bends backwards they clearly took a hit.  When your character yells out "ARghhh!" and falls on the ground they clearly took a lot more than "a hit".  Likewise character animations and sound effects can show parries, blocks with shields, your character can call out "My attack is ineffective?!?!" (heh heh), and any number of other cues to let you know what is going on in combat.

 

This is not 1990 anymore.  Graphics have come a very very long way and can show a great range of depth, and good sound design can cover for what graphics can't do.  As for arrows.... not only could your character make a comment like "Hmmmm... out of arrows!" but you also have weapon swap icons, they could just show your arrow count right there.

 

As for IE games.  No, I do not want BG3.  I want a modern 2013-2014 RPG made by the people who made BG that uses modern technology and a fresh design to make something that is in the same spirit and style but progressive and new at the same time.

No.

 

Edit: Just.... No.

[Instant Death]

Myself, I'd like to see "normal difficulty" to be about the same as a playthrough in normal tabletop gaming,

ie. you're supposed to be able to survive a first blind playthrough without dying or reloading once.

What does this even mean? I don't think I've ever played a 60 hour table-top session(s) where our entire party went through from beginning to end without *someone* dying in battle, or from a trap, or from doing something stupid. It happens. And a DM who denies his players that kind of natural drama (which is a HUGE part of the entire system) is doing a gross disservice.

 

Fortunately, most good DMs make it up to the players. a dead character can be raised, or re-incarnated (I Once had a very high level Fighter-mage who I loved. He died from a Chromatic Orb. And, as it happens, we had no cleric with us and the nearest temple was days away. But... we were adventuring with a Druid, who managed to Re-incarnate him.... as a Centaur. That's right. A Centaur. And my DM allowed me to continue adventuring, with all my fighter and mage skills... as a centaur. It was great fun.) That's the way you do it in Tabletop. You don't "take away the possibility of death". You don't "make things easy". Instead, you find a way to continue the adventure WITH the element of death still there.

[Instant Death]

In 1st and (if I'm not mistaken)2nd edition pen and paper D&D, Disentigrate sorta works like that. It is essentially a ray. And if a mage casts it on a fighter, then it goes to work. His shield, weapon and armor have to make a saving throw or be turned to dust. If his armor fails, then He, himself must make a saving throw. But if his armor makes its save then it is assumed that the Ray failed to "penetrate" deep enough to get to him.

[Instant Death]

I'm sorry that the way of things upsets you to the point of complete denial, but tactics thrive on factor-outcome variance,

Are you denying that there are at least a dozen different, and varying, factors inolved in a combat system scenario where save or die spells get used? Do you dispute the fact that both the player party, and the enemy has at least a dozen different tactical avenues they can take to decrease failure chances, become immune, avoid outright or even deflect partially the effects of a save or die spell?

 

If so, then you've never played the IE games. Simple as that. Or you're just being dishonest.

 

 

I'm simply voicing observations.

You mean blind guesses. Yes.

[Instant Death]

I'm sorry... while you're at it, could you please tell me what I'd like for dinner tonight? Because I obviously can't be as sure as you can. 8P. Thanks a bunch.

<Gag> Give it a rest. You barged in here in your very first post of this thread screaming about the catostropic, game-killing nature of One Hit KO's *period*, and then when we showed you Sawyer's post, where he confirms that PE will HAVE enemies who can Kill you with one hit, you shamelessly changed gears, did a complete 180, and began your soapbox about the evils of the system itself, where you can get killed despite your party's so-called "perfect" tactical game plan. But then, when you were shown a large list of things a party *can* do within that system to combat and protect themselves from Failing a save or Die spell check (ie. tons of Options), your response was: Er... um... No, that doesn't count! Death is still a factor, therefore NO!

 

No one is pretending to read your mind here. No one needs to. You're being painfully OBVIOUS. You don't want to worry about dying due to bad luck. That's fine. You're not a minority here. But be honest and ADMIT it.

 

 

 

The point: You have typed it. (see gold text above). Regarding the stun, your character isn't "completely taken out of the combat encounter." He's still standing there, and will recover after a time.

Likewise with Death, in the system we're describing, your character isn't "completely taken out of the combat encounter" either, he's still laying there and can be Raised... in the very next round if need be.

 

Of course this has already been pointed out to you, but like I said, the fact that death is an existing element, makes it bad, despite the fact that the system itself is EXACTLY THE SAME.

 

When a foe swings a weapon, it either hits or it doesn't, no matter what! *gasp*. But guess what? It produces a finite and variable effect, dependent upon oodles of other factors, even after the "no matter what" part. Guess what doesn't. That's right, insta-kill abilities, whose nature it is to nullify factors. (such as HP and armor values, etc.). Your resistance effectively becomes evasion, and everything else is rendered pointless.

Save or die spells do the same thing. And you know it. So here's what you're saying here:

 

Weapons that can hit or miss = OK

 

but:

 

Magic that can kill or not = bad.

 

I rest my case. Your issue is only with death. Admit it already. You are literally saying here here that you're ok with the "binary" 100% or 0%, "no matter what" mechanic.... right up until the consequences for failure become serious. The fact that you are (falsly) trying to argue that Save or Die eliminates other factors (like, you know, a rogue's ability to evade a death ray.... or a mage's ability to absorb, deflect, reflect that ray, or a fighter's ability to Improve his saves, or flat out resist Death effects via items, potions etc....) Is just you attempting to deny the fact that the system is exactly the same with save or die, as it is with save or be disabled. Or, block and take no damage. Or boost your health and survive the Tarrasque's bull rush.

 

I forgot... in real combat, the only thing stopping us from ABSOLUTE disablement is a will/fort save and/or some magic resistance.

Correct. The mechanics we're describing are conceptual methods designed to simulate situations in real life where sometimes one gets lucky and survives a dangerous situation, and sometimes he doesn't, despite all his planning, intelligence and experience.

 

 

The rest of your post is nothing more than your signature stream of consiousness, "lets lull the opponent to sleep with a bunch of words that aren't saying anything in the hopes that he gives up and then we can pretend we "won" the debate. So I'm going to brush it aside every time I sense you're doing it.

[Instant Death]

I'd be ok with such a system applied to weapons.

 

But Wizard/Priest spells, at least at the higher levels, should be a little more profound than that. There should be a distinct difference. Magic is legendary. Supernatural. It's *more* than the person who's using it. Make it rare, and give it all the user consequences you think it deserves, but don't dilute it. Magic should never be comparable to a police taser, or whatever. if it is, then the system is crap. You just sucked all the "magic" out of magic.

[Instant Death]

You're arguing sideways now. There are just as many ways to tackle "prevent that ability from ever hitting me," but that is the only option you have in tackling "not-dying to that ability." You cannot mitigate the effect of the ability by anything other than 100% or 0%. And the effect of the ability, itself, IS infinite or nothing. Having combat reduced to "don't get hit or you die" is about as much fun as having it reduced to "don't let that thing within 20 feet of you or you die." Imagine your party just all running around, trying to stay out of a given radius, just to not die instantly, no matter what. I'm just... not really sure how to emphasize this any more clearly. The whole point is the "no matter what" part.

Riight. Can we reign in the disingenuous debating for a moment or two? Stop pretending that your beef is with the 100% or 0%, "no matter what!" nature of save or die, when what you REALLY dislike is... lethal combat. Combat that forces you to fear the death of your characters. Tell it like it is. Because many of us here actually have passing knowledge of decent spell systems, where you have spells like Hold Person, Power word Stun, Dire charm, Sleep, Flesh to stone, etc. All of which are ALSO Un-mitigateable, 100% or 0%, no matter what spells. They just won't kill you. For example, If you save against a stun spell, you're home free. If you Fail your save, that's it. Your character is out of commission. Completely taken out of the combat encounter, through no tactical fault of your own (other than the fact that you didn't prepare ahead of time to protect against it.) Ditto with all the others.

 

But you don't have a problem with any of those. Do you. Nope, you just have a problem with the ones that can kill you. So the OBVIOUS conclusion here is: You don't want lethal combat. You want something like Pokemon or Dragon Age, where combat is forgiving, non-lethal, and apolegetic. Again, tell it like it is.

 

 

 

Everything else in combat matters what, even when you get hit, or are in the wrong place, or use the wrong person, etc.

NOPE. If I Maze or Deep Slumber your Fighter, I have just instantly taken him out of combat....no matter what. You no longer control him. You can no longer use him. Whatever 'gameplan' or "tactics" you had involving him have just been flushed down the crapper. And it doesn't make a lick of difference how tactical you were before I cast that spell. If I cast that spell on your Fighter, and he fails his saving throw, he's just as good as dead, and will remain that way for the rest of the encounter (assuming my party doesn't decide to take advantage of his disabled state and KILL HIM AS HE LAYS THERE, DEFENSELESS.) But that's life. Excuse me, that's an accurate simulation of the perils of any real combat: sometimes you get unlucky and the best laid plans of mice and men fail at the blink of an eye. Suck it up princess, as the saying goes.

 

 

But like I said before, your only beef is with Tough combat where death is actually a possibility. You're simply Trying to mask this fact by putting up feeble fluff arguments to try and make boring, predictable, non-exciting, non-lethal, combat sound like some sort of 'logical' improvement to how things were in the Icewind dales and the BG games. The mechanics behind Save-or-die are Exactly the same as the ones behind save-or-be-disabled... and there's no way around this bottom line.

[Instant Death]

 

Nope, instead, in those games all the tactical gameplay and strategy still occured, even in fights where you or your opponent did get lucky and managed to score an insta-kill of one or two of the combatants on the battle field.

I didn't say it negates all tactical aspects of combat, whatsoever. Just that it adds in exclusively-binary gameplay. With other things (such as high damage, or high armor, or high movement speed, or fast attacks, status effects, etc.) in combat, there are oodles of methods available for dealing with those factors, specifically. With insta-death, there is only one method of dealing with it: You either go all-in and stop it, your you don't and it kills you.

 

That's... not true, there are just as many ways to deal with an instant death spell as there is to deal with, say, a mind effecting spell like Hold Person or Sleep.

 

You can:

 

1) Do what you mentioned above (swarm the offender and try to either take him out or disrupt his casting

2) Employ stealth or another form of battle field positioning so as not to be targetted

3) You can directly counter (Or Hard counter, as Sawyer puts it) by casting death ward, anti-magic shell, Volley, Spell Turning etc (the last three of which have multiple uses, and a mage with those spells is employing wise tactical game play by casting those spells ANYWAY, even if he's facing an opponent who doesn't have insta-death spells in his arsenal

4) You can passively defend. I mentioned this one to Sawyer on Formspring. The best defense against ANY magic is to improve your saving throws - Something every player should be doing anyway, via level up skills, magic armor, potions, temple blessings etc.

 

 

Sure, there's tactical combat, but at some point in the midst of tactical combat, you've got this bubble where you're dealing in binary. It's out-of-place, to be honest.

This is an RPG. You're dealing in Binary anyway, unless they do something silly with the mechanics, like completely eliminate the possibility of Failure. Take trap disarming, for example. You can't "sorta succeed" in disarming a trap. No. You either successfully disarm the trap, or you fail to disarm the trap. And if you want to argue that at least with Trap disarming, you can tactically increase your chances of succeeding, I'll argue that you can do the same thing with any save or die spell (see above)

 

 

^personally, I support this completely. Do you? Your posts suggest you don't, since in a scenario like this (where the enemy can kill you in ONE HIT), tactics are not determining the result of the fight. Your "armor rating" or "choice of weapon" is not helping you. Nothing is. Why? because the Only deciding factor in this scenario is the sheer power difference between yourself and the enemy.

The key word there being "possibly." Based on factors, as in more than one. I.e., if the enemy is super powerful, he does some high, though finite, amount of damage. Therefore, if you send someone who is too weak in to slap him in the face, you die. Yet, you have other means of mitigating this ultra-powerful foe's attack. You have higher armor values on more heavily-armored characters you can send in, and you have spells that can temporarily absorb incoming damage, and spells that can weaken this foe, etc. Yet, he can still strike people, and, due to your efforts, still deal damage while failing to instantly kill someone.

 

Sawyer neither says nor implies any of these caveats. No. He is LITERALLY arguing that insta death can occur, just that it won't be luck based, it will be based on extreme power differences. And power difference is just 1 factor, not many.

 

Also, I never said tactics were the "*only*" factor in a fight. I specifically stated that chance and rolls have their place. I just don't think their place is to determine between someone dying-no-matter-what, and someone living and suffering no effects whatsoever.

Likewise, I would never argue that a game should ONLY have save or die. Instead, the occasional save or die spell should exist, along with all the other wonderful stuff that you and others here are suggesting.

 

So I don't see the big problem. And again, I cite the Infinity engine games. They did both.

[Update #54: Art Update - Work IS in Progress!]

[code=

Ooh, Shiny!

 

I like this one.

[Instant Death]

OK, the both of you are arguing from the point of view that if a game puts in a few insta-death spells, then suddenly, all tactical combat is ruined, that it all goes out the window and encounters from then on turn into quick affairs where the first person to cast Wail of the Banshee wins, and tough luck for the helpless loser, who's entire, elaborate game plan has just been tossed aside in favor of the luck of the dice roll. Yes, Yes. Tragic. A deliberately frightening scenario that attempts to portray "save or die" as mutually exclusive to good tactical combat. But it is not. And that's NOT how any of the IE games ever played out, was it.

 

Nope, instead, in those games all the tactical gameplay and strategy still occured, even in fights where you or your opponent did get lucky and managed to score an insta-kill of one or two of the combatants on the battle field.

 

 

INCIDENTLY, before we get carried away in our zeal to argue that tactics are the *only* deciding factor in a fight, lets take a look at something J.E. Sawyer said in his Formspring post (above)

 

PCs can be downed in a small number of hits (possibly one if the enemy is powerful enough), but that has less to do with luck and more to do with the raw power difference between the attacker and the defender.

^personally, I support this completely. Do you? Your posts suggest you don't, since in a scenario like this (where the enemy can kill you in ONE HIT), tactics are not determining the result of the fight. Your "armor rating" or "choice of weapon" is not helping you. Nothing is. Why? because the Only deciding factor in this scenario is the sheer power difference between yourself and the enemy.