Stun

Then stop criticizing Icewind Dale, because that's its point too.

It's a linear strategy RPG. You'll grind and grind and grind because that's the point.

Yeah, if you like Grinding....

Why should we consider playstation exclusives?

Of course it's an absurd question. It's also an intentional attempt to confuse everything. Nowhere on this thread did I ever claim, suggest, or imply, directly or indirectly that any buff should ever be any different depending on when it is cast. Lephys LITERALLY pulled that "question" out of his ass in an attempt to fish around for something new to latch on to, since all of his previous talking points had been shot down. He does this sort of thing all the time, btw. He's a disgustingly dishonest debater. But the problem is that you can't "fix" personalities like his. All you can do is call him out then stay on him till he gets tired and quits his antics on his own. So lets continue. False. Protection from Fire does not denote the extent of the protection. It will in the spell description. Then, when it is cast (either before, during or after a battle), it will bestow the stated protection. Period. So? If it does that stuff, then it will do it regardless of when it is cast.

False. If it's false that you don't want the same buff to have an in-combat version, then it's true that you want each buff to have an in-combat version. As distinct from some other version that doesn't have "in-combat" as a descriptor. Thus, two versions. Which is why I asked if that's what Stun meant. Sweet merciful f*ck. Enough of this banal gibberish. I said false because, I don't expect nor want "versions" of a specific buff. Moreover, wanting pre-buffs only means that I want to be able to cast some buffs before battle so that when the battle starts, I will already be at my best possible fighting condition and can thus concentrate on the enemy, instead of having to spend too much time on my own defensive protections.

Thanks for emphasizing my point. A spell or beneficial effect can't be both: 1) short-term and potent, AND 2) long-term and more of a background bonus that doesn't directly support emergent/dynamic combat tactics The hell are you talking about? Just a couple of posts ago, you were under the impression (specifically stated, in fact) that if one advocates Pre-buffing and in-combat buffing, then he/she must advocate that the spells used for pre-buffering must be different versions than one ones used during combat. This is complete nonsense on your part and Hiro's post does not "emphasize your point" at all. Lets take a standard combat buff. Say... Protection from fire. Protection from Fire will be the same buff with the same effect, regardless of when it's cast. it will not, for example be more powerful and have a shorter duration if you cast it just before a battle than it will if you cast it during a battle.

Not sure why you think that casting a buff before a battle (ie. PREPARING for battle) suddenly means that this buff must have a totally different version when cast on the fly, during battle. It does NOT. Except maybe in Lephysville. Anything that temporarily positively affects your character's status is a buff. No it's not, unless it's a spell called "armor". Actual armor is equipment and is "permanent". Actual armor does not "expire" after a few rounds, or a few minutes. Actual armor does not disappear when an enemy mage successfully casts a debuff spell at you. A torch can be a buff, yes, if it bestows a temporary positive status effect on its wielder, such as heat or improved vision. Like I said, I don't have such an ignorantly narrow view of Buffs (since I've played games that had robust and comprehensive Buffing spell systems). And maybe that's why me and you are in such disagreement I wouldn't say they do, since they didn't say that there will be no prebuffing period. They merely said that there will be no SPELL pre-buffing. And that is what we are specifically discussing here, isn't it. Aah, and there you go again with your unquenchable desire for an overly simplistic, overly limited system. an Invisibility spell would NOT defeat the purpose of stealth, since it would function as a temporary (ie. x per day) alternative for builds that did not put points into stealth.

False. Oh, I don't know, Lephys. I guess I don't have such an ignorantly narrow view of what Buffs are as you do. Invisibility is a buff. Specifically, it's a buff that can have a very different function when cast before an encounter vs. when cast during an encounter. When cast before an encounter, it can be a tool for scouting/reconnaissance. It can be a tool for an intrepid trap setter to go to work on trapping a future battlefield. It can be a tool to facilitate an ambush. A system that prohibits pre-buffing will not allow for any of this. Therefore, invisibility in this system will be far more limited. it will only have IN-combat uses: To get enemies to leave you alone and to set up a sneak attack. You, of course prefer this. 'The more limited the better' is your motto. Right?

Aah, this answers a question I've had. So just to make sure I'm reading this right, When you kill enemy wizards, they will drop their Grimoire(s), and then you can learn every spell they had in those Grimoires.

Of course. In fact, I'd argue that engaging in melee combat in BG2 is probably the most inefficient way to dispose of enemies. Well, I'm not going to try and come up with an objective definition of fun. Because that would be silly, and arrogant. And just to be clear: when I judge a game's combat as "good" or "bad" I am not voicing an opinion on whether I think its combat is "fun" or "not-fun". For example, Witcher 2. I thought combat in Witcher 2 was rather good. But I definetly didn't think it was fun. It was way too twitchy and actiony for my tastes. But I don't deny its complexity, or its visual brilliance.

I agree. Or at least I totally see where you're coming from. But this only reiterates what someone said earlier on this thread: You might end up not enjoying PoE's combat. It will be using real time with pause. No, no, More than that. It's going to be real time with pause on steroids, since time isn't going to be measured in rounds or turns like it was in the IE games. It's going to be measured in seconds. When describing different types of attacks and effects, Sawyer has used terminology like "DPS". And on top of that, there's been no mention of twitch mechanics. Hitting, grazing and missing will be based on calculations, not your keyboard and mouse skills. A giant red flag should be waving in your face right about now. Me though, I'm going to withhold judgment Yep, exactly. (re: turn based vs. Twitch) See, that is the reason why I personally loved combat in the BG games and the IWD games. it was a strange mix of the two that managed to work. Both extremes were diluted down and the end result was something that IMO succeeded in scratching both itches. While this should go without saying, the term "dynamic" does not rule out the notion that one can discover a specific tactic (like you did) that always works. Dynamic means that the system is robust enough to support the success of dozens of different tactics. As it stands, I have a totally different set of strategies I use in, say, BG2. I can beat the game marvelously without using Minsc, without "fists", without timestop, without scrolls of anti-magic, and definitely without cheesing AOEs at off-screen enemies. (for example)

So you like Turn-Based combat. (ToEE) And you like Twitch based combat (Skyrim) And we've established that the actual rule system here doesn't make a difference (ToEE uses a very strict and by the book D&D 3.5 rule system.) And admittedly ToEE's combat is absolutely awesome in every way imaginable. It is turn-based though. And if the reason why you think it's good is because it's turn based then there's nothing more to say. Although I do find it kinda weird that you'd specifically level criticism about the monotonous, same-samey nature of the combat in the IE games, while Praising what Skyrim does. There's nothing more simple and one dimensional than Skyrim's brand of Twitch combat. There's literally nothing to its combat, except for maybe hand-eye coordination (literally. See something? hit it with your sword as fast as you can. Then keep hitting it till it dies. Ditto with Archery. Although to be fair, Skyrim does archery about 10,000,000,000 times better than the IE games. Because it can. Because It's got 1st person view, Havok-enabled physics, 3d terrains, and other things that facilitate the implementation of good Archery mechanics. The bad news of course is that if you use Skyrim's shooting as a standard for "good", then you will be disappointed in PoE. since it's not going to do it even remotely as well. It can't. But the reason why people love/appreciate the combat in some of the IE games is because of the other stuff. Its depth, for one. Combat is not simply the practice of "whittle the enemy down to zero as fast as you can by pounding him with your axe." There are a bajillion mechanics involved. Hitting, missing, defending, poisoning, stunning, charming, sleeping, holding, petrifying, slowing, strengthing, weakening, mirror imaging, disappearing, entangling, backstabbing, summoning, disrupting, greasing, bleeding, confusing, insta-killing, hasting, different weapons doing different types of damage. Different classes approaching combat with totally different skill-sets. There's a round and turn system that affects everything. Then there's the sheer volume of spells from several different schools (far more than any of the RPGs you've listed) Parties working together. Different enemies that use all of the same combat attack and defense forms that your party uses. etc. If You're playing the IE games and find yourself just as interested in what's happening on the game screen as you are on what's happing in the combat log window, then you get it. It's all just more... dynamic. That is why people like the combat in the IE games.

Usually when someone comes on here and proclaims that the IE games had crap combat, I like to get a better idea of the mindset/barometer they're using - partly to assess whether engaging in this thread will be a utter waste of my time and intelligence, but mainly because I'm just curious. To the thread starter: In your opinion what cRPGs have good combat?

Buff-debuff battles are not isolated things separate from the core of combat. They're PART of the whole. Even in BG2, the mother of all mass-Buffing experiences, combat was robust and comprehensive enough to have both the offense and defense minigames going on at the same time. It was not unusual to literally debuff an enemy to death. Or the opposite --- destroy someone without touching any of his buffs. So stop making this out to be an either/or. And that goes for the passive/active nonsense you're arguing too. Wanting pre-buffs does not mean that one doesn't also want in-combat buffs. Let me repeat that. Wanting pre-buffs does not mean that one doesn't also want in-combat buffs. So trying to argue for one over the other is pointless. Since I want both.

It's an extra dimension to combat, is all. BG2 probably took it a bit too far with its super-complex mage battles. But the solution isn't to go in the opposite direction. It's to keep that dimension but tone it down. When we talk about Pre-buffing, no one here is asking for us to be able to buff against every single possible attack form in a given encounter (as your repeated hyperbole-driven examples suggest) But rather, just let us prepare for the obvious. For example, entering mind flayer stronghold, and putting up buffs that will protect us against psionic attacks. That's not overkill, nor does it kill challenge (since mind flayers can still destroy you in a few rounds without using their psionics.) Again, if given a choice between a game that has both types and a game that only has one, only a fool would choose the latter. Why impose unnecessary limitations? You can in some. In Temple of Elemental Evil (for example) you can totally load up with all manner of pre-buffs Which is why No one here is arguing that a game should only have the passive type. Er... I never claimed that it didn't affect the tackling of the encounter at all. I just claimed it didn't affect the difficulty. Of course it affected how you fight the encounter. if you pre-buffed your party, then all your buffs got dispelled as soon as combat starts, then...YES, you suddenly have to stop and ponder your next move (do I recast those buffs? or do I forget them and just go on the attack?) Aah, and this is where I get to ask: What's the difference here? What's the real difference between using potions to pre-buff yourself up vs. using your class's abilities to pre-buff. Answer: there's only 1 difference. Casting spells/abilities takes longer. So at the end of the day, Sawyer's argument really does boil down to only one thing: he doesn't want us to waste time preparing for battles. *shrug* Personally, I'd rather spend time actually fighting the enemy, with him fighting me, instead of spending all my time trying to destroy all his nukes while preventing him from destroying mine. Translation: Me no want think. Me just want SMASH! Personally, I want combat to be more of a thinking man's game. If an enemy has no defenses, then so be it. ME SMASH! But if he's got protections, then I want to deal with them, render them inert/useless/non-existent, then ME SMASH.

Like contingencies and sequencers? Yes, he could have. (and he should have) Bioware did that with BG2. And as a result, BG2 is a better game than Icewind Dale. All buffs are influenced/support active combat factors. That's why they're called Buffs. The issue here isn't what those buffs are, it's when you're allowed to use them. One side says you should only be allowed to use them during combat, while the other side says such limitations shouldn't be imposed. Usually you don't need to. In the tougher encounters of the Icewind Dale games the enemy sometimes begins the encounter by casting Dispel Magic on your party, thus erasing all the pre-buffing you did. LOL. Strangely, this really didn't make much of a difference - didn't really change the difficulty of the battle, it just forced you to either fight unbuffed, or take some time to re-buff yourself. Lets stick to the latter - combat pre-planning. You enter a cave. You know for a fact (because you took the time to do some in-game investigation/rumor gathering) that this cave is filled with Fire elementals, Salamanders, and Fire Giants. So you plan ahead for the challenge. As soon as you enter the cave you start casting Fire Protection spells. Oh wait. You can't. because there's no spell pre-buffing. Instead, you must wait until those fire-using monsters are upon you. Nothing wrong with that. Specifically, when encountering a fully buffed up enemy, you should have a choice. 1) Debuff him enough so that he becomes 100% vulnerable to every one of your Party's attacks 2) debuff him just enough so that your most powerful "heavy hitter" can take him out 3) Debuff him just enough so that he becomes vulnerable to your party's most effective damage-dealing strategy 4) engage him in a war of attrition and wait out his buffs. ^This is Tactical. It poses a decent problem-solving challenge. And most importantly it is a situation that all builds can tackle.

Yes, I was there when someone asked Sawyer what his problem was with Pre-buffing, and I saw his answer (he dislikes it because he once saw someone take 6 rounds to pre-buff in order to win a tough battle in Icewind Dale.) In Josh's opinion, this constitutes a waste of good gaming time ie. "degenerate Gameplay", and therefore, there will be no such thing in POE. As for the issue itself, I do not rank it very high in importance. (I prefer to be allowed to pre-buff, but I won't boycott a game that prohibits it. BUT I do take issue with most of the arguments that have been made. The bulk of them are really silly, so I'm going to take some time here to address the more common ones. 1) The Meta-gaming argument - we see this one a lot. It goes like this: You engage in an encounter, you get your ass kicked, you reload and pre-buff according to what you saw happen to you. This argument is particularly absurd for a number of reasons. First, there's no cure for metagaming. You want to know what the real waste of time is? When devs sit down and try to figure out ways to cure the incurable. Second, I really don't see the great evil in the above example anyway. In this situation, metagaming occurred because the player couldn't figure out a strategy on the fly to win that encounter the first time out. So friggin what? If the game is well designed and challenging that's gonna happen with or without pre-buffing. So why cite this as a reason for...anything? 2)Pre-buffing eliminates Challenge - Yeah, It certainly can.... If those buffs are so game-changingly powerful as to make you immune to all harm. The solution here, then, would be to <gasp> make those buffs less powerful, NOT, take away the player's ability to plan ahead. 3) Pre-buffing is Passive countering, not Active countering. Active is Good. Passive is bad - Ie. It's good to run outside naked in the cold and then find a way to get warm once you're out there. (build a fire, find leaves/newspapers to cover yourself up etc). But It's Bad to just put on a coat before stepping outside. Yeah. Ok. Got it. Wait, why does it have to be Either/Or? What's wrong with a system that incorporates both passive and active countering? Oh that's right. nothing. Nothing but your personal opinion that preparing ahead of time somehow eliminates the problem-solving element. 4) Josh's Argument: It's a waste of good gaming time. Tedious. - This is for US to decide, Josh. Not the developer. If the time comes where I get sick of pre-buffing, then.... I'll stop prebuffing. By the way, Josh, if people are getting sick of pre-buffing in games that you made, then that means you messed up... in other ways. Either you made encounters too frequent, or you created too many overly specific Buffs, or you made the duration of those buffs too short. Or the nature of the Buffs is just wrong. 5) Balance! Devs can either balance a game for pre-buffing or no pre-buffing. But they can't do both.- I don't buy this one. They can easily do both at the same time. Simply vary the difficulty of the encounters. Make some easy, make some moderate, make some difficult. And then leave it up to the player to deal with it.

Spell pre-buffing will not be in the game. But they said nothing about every other kind of pre-buff. We don't know, for example, whether we'll be totally free to chug down potions of fire resistance, potions of accuracy, potions of invisibility etc. before a fight.

Sure there was. Everquest's system was prominent at the time. As was Diablo/Diablo2's system. And the Elder Scrolls's system. Oh, that's true for sure. But those don't scratch nearly the same itch, which is my point. I have no idea what you're saying here. They were: 1) prominent cRPGs at the time? Check. 2)they used their own rule system? Check. 3) Their existence goes counter to the claim that there was nothing else out there but AD&D and the IE games? Check.

A big part of that reason wasn't so much the inherent quality as the fact that there wasn't anything else out there. Sure there was. Everquest's system was prominent at the time. As was Diablo/Diablo2's system. And the Elder Scrolls's system.

Well, This is faith/wishful thinking. Sawyer hasn't proven yet that he can create a better system. We'll know for sure when PoE comes out. But right now, he simply comes across as someone who thinks he can do better. And that's not unique. Mike Laidlaw thought he could do better. And we got Dragon Age 2. AD&D, and the IE games were wildly successful for a reason. We probably shouldn't forget that.

You don't. Not in BG1. The game can be beaten... soloed in fact, on any difficulty, without the use of ANY buffs, pre - or otherwise. True story. A few months ago we had a thread here about the "evils" of pre-buffing. (according to some people, the IE games suck because, apparently, they require you to prepare for some battles). Anyway, one thing lead to another and I decided to prove, mainly to myself, how totally wrong and silly these claims were. I Decided to do a "no-buffing" run. I fired up BG1, created a plain-jane fighter and took Imoen for her Thieving skills. Played on the standard Normal difficulty (BG1 does not have a "core" setting. Normal IS core in BG1.) What I discovered: I was right. after about 1/3rd of the way through, The game became so easy that I began to wonder why I wasted so many hundreds upon hundreds of hours these last 15 years making sure my party was glowing in the dark from the 1001 buffs I thought I needed before every major battle. Conclusion: As someone mentioned earlier here, the bulk of these gripes probably stem from lack of knowledge of the rules system. the IE games INDEED do a lousy job teaching those who don't know it. So please, people, just stick to that. Don't go off and accuse the IE games of faults/flaws they don't actually have. Also another conclusion... one of personal tastes: I didn't really enjoy that playthough btw. The realization that all the wonderful, creative, fancy buffs in the game are nothing more than window dressing is.... disappointing. I WANT pre-buffing. I WANT a game that punishes me for being lazy, and rewards me for taking the time to prepare.

I don't think we're there yet. The problem with the AI of many RPGs is that devs will load up an enemy with the same combat "tools" that the player party has, but then they won't bother using them. Mages will have wands and other devices in their inventory that they won't use. Fighters will have talents they won't activate. Enemy clerics will get surrounded by your party's summoned Skeletons but won't bother turning undead And then there's basic AI stupidity. An enemy will find itself engulfed in one of your long lasting AOEs (like stinking cloud or cloudkill or grease) and won't bother trying to leave the area of effect. Instead they'll just sit in one place and try, in vain, to "counter" with spells of their own.

You mean elemental legion? I guess. Although If you're gonna waste 9th level druid spells on summons, I'd suggest Shambler. Of course if you start a 6 person party at level 1 in HoF mode you won't get either one until you're well into chapter 5, and by then Summons are no longer a big deal (enemies are back to destroying them in a few hits). But hey, that's when the real fun begins. You can simply Mass dominate/Symbol of Hopelessness half the screen (Yuanti, Trolls and lizardmen have horrible will saves) and Wail of the Banshee or Firestorm everything else.