Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)
Obsidian’s 10th Extra Life Anniversary

Stun

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2849

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Stun

  1. Stun
    For the sake of measuring build effectiveness, I'm assuming the No Prebuffing rule . In fact, That's going to BE the rule with POE (no spell pre-buffing) whether we like it or not. Not a big deal for a fighter-mage, since the best buffs have nearly instant casting times (Mirror Image, Stoneskin, invisibility) But then, is the mage also not allowed to de-buff the warrior during combat? Because that's one of the huge advantages offered to melee mages. In my melee-mage runs in the IE games, a common tactic I used was to slow or hold my opponent. And of course, fighters can do the same to mages, with the right weapons.
  2. Stun
    Could you do that without significant pre-fight buffing and an item advantage? An Item advantage? You mean like, take away the Mage's melee weapon and then see how he does, in melee, against a heavily armed and armored Warrior? Regardless, there's no logic behind trying to handicap the argument unrealistically. It's a given, in an RPG, that both classes will be able to use the buffs and items allowed to their class. That's part of what a build IS. The point is to see how they do in melee in light of all that.
  3. Stun
    I guess IWD2 doesn't count as an IE game then. LOL And you're wrong anyway. Rangers could wield and thrive with melee weapons in all the IE games. And mages had spells like phantom blade, black blade of Disaster etc. to get their sword-wielding fix. not to mention spells they could use in tandem with the above to make them good in melee (tensors transformation, haste, improved haste, stoneskin, spirit armor etc.) But really, dismissing the multi-classing/dual-classing argument as something that "doesn't count" or "doesn't hold water", will not make it go away. The ability to dual or multi-class IS there to give the player near unlimited build choice options within the class system, yes. The fact that there are cleric and mage spells specifically designed to enhance specific multiclass combinations is just further proof. The hell it is. If I'm building a melee mage in POE, will the build be flexible enough to hold its own in melee with a warrior? Because you could do that in the IE games. Because everything was less rigid.
  4. Stun
    ...at which point they stopped being purely mages. An optional multi/dual-classing mechanic that the majority of players probably ignored is a pretty poor substitute for making the classes themselves fundamentally more flexible. But that's just one example. What about the fact that there are no dump stats and fighters can benefit from high Intellect? What about the fact that everybody can be stealthy and pick locks if they invest in the appropriate skills? What about the fact that every class gets the same amount of skill points and additional max health per level? These are things that you and other people in this thread have probably complained about, things that make the classes LESS rigid and distinct, not more. You can't have it both ways. You claimed rigidity in combat roles of the classes in the IE games, citing the weapon choices of mages as an example. But the fact that those games gave you Multi-classing capability and dual classing capability proves otherwise. Literally. And so does the entirety of IWD2's character generation system, where any class can use any weapon-type even without multi-classing. If you want to now shift focus to non-combat skill rigidity, go right ahead. But it's a different subject.
  5. Stun
    Not only that. But in the IE games, Mages could, in fact, wield swords, And spears, and morning stars, and bows. You could multi-class in the IE games, remember? And of course in IWD2 mages could wield swords without multi-classing.
  6. Stun
    Judging the Ranger class based on a couple of pre-built Bioware NPCs will not give you an accurate picture. Kivan was an archery beast because Archery itself was unusually powerful in BG1. Ironically though, Kivan was good at archery despite the fact that he wasn't optimally built for it. (didn't he only have 16 Dex?) As for Valygar, well, he was a beastmaster. One of the more difficult kits to play in BG2. They're not that great at anything. But Minsc was a good tank. Especially in the second game. 18/93 STR; you get him nice and early so you can fully control his level advancement; He can wear Heavy armor; Favored Enemy is Vampire (very useful in BG2), and he just so happened to start the game with a double proficiency in maces (for the mace of disruption...ahem... vampires) and 2-h swords. But even he wasn't optimally built. The player can build a far better ranger. True, but what they did, they did really, really well. Encounter design in IWD1 was absolutely superb, and IWD2's Chargen was bar none the best of pretty much any game I've ever played. You want virtually unlimited Build choice options? Look no further than Icewind Dale 2.
  7. Stun
    Hey Josh. Something didn't ring true to my eyes when I read this, so, I dusted off my old 1st edition Player's Handbook and looked up Rangers. And what you're saying here is Hardly an accurate picture of combat skills 1st edition Rangers got. First of all, their bonus damage vs. Giants is not some throwaway skill. It's a Huge thing. A game changer. AD&D 1st edition defines the Giant class as: Bugbears, Ettins, Giants (Hill, Stone, Frost, Fire and Storm), Gnolls, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Kobolds, Ogres, Ogre Magi, Orcs and Trolls. That's a pretty large pool of opponents, wouldn't you say? And considering how much the Ranger bonus damage is against those creatures (+1 per level with no cap, and that's in addition to every other bonus they get, like strength modifiers and weapon enchantments) They also surprise opponents 50% of the time. And they get mage spells in addition to their druid spells. In fact, at 17th level, a Ranger's spell casting is pretty formidable, considering they're part of the fighter class. Mirror Image, Call Lightning, Entangle, Heat metal, Invisibility, levitate. etc. When augmented with their already top-tier fighting prowess (they're better with weapons than every class except other fighters), this gives them a unique edge. You can "Front line", "Heavy Hit" and "Mob Rule" at the same time with a Ranger in 1e AD&D. They were borderline overpowered.
  8. Stun
    Wanna bet?
  9. Stun
    Oh indeed. Rogues as heavy hitters, Stamina damage; per-encounter talents; No multi-classing; no dual-classing. Rangers with vital animal companions, etc. Sure sounds like the IE games to me!
  10. Stun
    Dissuade you Nothing. You shouldn't be here. LOL
  11. Stun
    But that's the system across the board. It's not any different than a Warrior with a sword. A warrior can chug down all the 'bonus-to-hit' potions he has, then coat his weapon with 10 different kinds of poisons, only to then roll a 1.... miss his opponent, and all his prep is wasted.
  12. Stun
    Do you mean no healing spells because Recovery will heal Stamina, not HP? No, I mean... Healing spells. Like someone gets hit by a lightning bolt, suffers a wound, and a priest heals them with a spell. Stamina, by definition, is something that is lost when someone engages in a strenuous activity, like running a marathon. By contrast, a hitpoint pool should be a measurement of one's pain tolerance. The two can overlap, of course, (running a marathon can be painful), but since they don't always overlap, wouldn't it make more sense for there to be both "Healing spells" and "stamina recovery spells"? That is, IF you're going to develop a system where these things can be recovered by magical means.
  13. Stun
    Well, we already know of 1 twist to the standard RPG priest: No healing spells.
  14. Stun
    Plus, if one's problem with Harm is that its an "all or nothing" spell, and that such spells "suck", then fine. That's Personal taste. A gamer is not required to love every type of spell/spell effect in a game. (personally, I dislike summons in a party based RPG. The concept itself seems redundant. You already have a party. Why do you seek help from conjured monsters?) But you don't see me spending 10 pages condemning the concept of Summoning spells, do you? Nope. On the contrary. I'll condemn an RPG if it doesn't have summoning spells. And Death spells. And contingency spells. And overpowered AOEs. A good system must have all of these concepts, otherwise it loses the "good" label. Why? Playstyles. The more playstyles the system caters to, the better the game is going to be. Period.
  15. Stun
    Indeed it is. Specifically, it lends itself easily to colloquialisms because of the cookie-cutter, one dimensional, easily definable nature of the builds. And the fact that combat practically REQUIRES that each of these roles be filled. It's not deal breaker. I actually had a lot of fun playing WOW, for about a year. But Please obsidian, please: Don't mimic WOW with the specifics. I do not want to see a "Threat Generation" mechanic on my front liners, for example. Just...Don't.
  16. Stun
    Good point. It kinda does have a "WOW" vibe to it. It's not blatant. But you can sense the influence. In all, I'm not quite sure what to make of that. But I do know that I'm not all that happy that the Devs themselves have seen fit to assign those Labels to the classes. They call Rogues "heavy hitters". WOW calls them "DPS Kings". But in the IE games, and of course in D&D, they were nothing of the sort. They were the sneaks and the scouts. They were the lock pickers, trap disarmers, trap setters and pickpockets. In combat, they weren't the heaviest hitters. Not by a long shot. They could backstab for massive damage but only on occasion. They used the lower tier weapons, like Daggers and short swords. Not the big guns that the true heavy hitters used, like massive swords and greataxes. And it seems that the "WOW influence" will extend to the other classes too. This update defines Mages as "Mob Rulers". WOW calls mages "crowd control". In the IE games and in D&D Mages didn't have such titles. Mainly because you could make your mage do just about anything extremely well. And of course, the Warrior classes are the "front liners" in POE, aka "tanks" in WOW lingo, I don't have a problem with that at all, but in the IE games, Fighters were the best fighters. THEY were the heavy hitters. I'll keep an open mind. But when this game comes out and I play it, if combat feels like WOW or Dragon Age Origins, my Rage will be severe.
  17. Stun
    Indeed. That was the first thing that popped into my head: Animal companions. Sweet. Er... ok what kind of animals? Are they going to be the standard fare Ie. Wolves, cats, badgers, falcons, bears? Or more fancy stuff, like Imps, Sirines, Spiders, baby dragons..." Also, and this is a pet peeve of mine, When item and ability descriptions say: "extra damage"... and then don't specify even a little bit. Like this, for example: ^how much extra damage? Is it a significant amount, like +100% of a rogue's standard weapon damage? less? more?
  18. Stun
    See, same thing, except it's not limited-use like a spell. Except that it is, Lephys. Quivering Palm can only be used once per day. And that makes it even MORE limited than the spells a Mage or Cleric gets, which can be memorized many times. Also, you cannot be a Monk-Mage, so the Timestop tactic is closed off for quivering palm. However, Monks can stun opponents. And attacks against stunned opponents are also automatic hits. So Quivering palm could be used in that scenario. Too bad it's subject to a saving throw. Oh, and Unlike Harm, Quivering Palm will KILL its target if it succeeds.
  19. Stun
    Well, then a round of applause for the people who made deicisons in the Throne of Bhaal's design. Really? You're Ok with that, despite the fact that all it takes is a single casing of either Breach or Pierce Magic (respectively) and *boom*, these Throne of Bhaal Dragons are right back to being vulnerable to Harm...? Wait...2 turns? I would never be happy with killing a dragon in 2 turns. That's 20 rounds. I was doing better than that halfway into my 1st playthough. But to address your non-point, The devs didn't change a single thing in the system with TOB. Instead, they simply changed the AI of specific bosses. This was a point I brought up earlier as a *solution* to Josh Sawyer's gripe about players killing tough bosses in one round, and you dismissed it. Hypocrite. It's not. BG2 does not use a point system for spells. In BG2, you use Spells to increase your chances of landing other spells. Or, if we're discussing battle tactics, You employ a spell-filled battle plan early in a battle, to insure the success of the spells you use later in battle. In that case, I don't see why not. After all, a screen-sized Fireball that does 6000 damage will do No damage to those who are immune to fire. Or those who buff themselves with Fire resistance. Or creatures with high Magic Resistance, or Rogues who have Improved evasion. Or Mages with Spell turning, or Mages with Minor Globe of invulnerability or Globe of invulnerability, or spell trap Or Spell Immunity(evocation), Or anyone who's using a Rod of Absorption, or anyone wearing the Cloak of Mirroring. In short, BG2's system already has things covered. Or as I said before, there are ways around EVERYTHING. Because BG2 allows your mage to cast 3 or more of those debuff spells at once (spell trigger; spell sequencer; Contingency; Chain contingency... not to mention your Project Image and your Project image's simulacrum, which can do the same!), in the meantime, your cleric is free to toss those death spells, or more debuffs, or other spells, while your rogue and your warriors can whittle down the enemy so that even if he does manage to save against the Finger of Death, the damage he takes from it might still kill him. Welcome to tactics 101. But buddy, The inclusion of Death spells in a game does not mean that you no longer have to think. If you assess the situation and reach a conclusion that employing a death spell is unviable in a given encounter, then you.... don't cast it. You employ a different set of tactics instead. Death spells certainly aren't a universal tool. I should hope not! There's nothing more DULL than a magic system that works just like a sword swing. Magic should operate with a completely different set of rules. Great. And? is there some rule in Lephys-land that says you cannot achieve the same result 2 different ways? And what's this "absolute" crap? Have we been unable to penetrate your head with the FACT that there are ways to mitigate EVERYTHING in Bg2? That doesn't help your argument. The inclusion of death spells in a system simply means that the player is given more tools to choose from. More ways to role play. More ways to destroy his enemies.
  20. Stun
    If it isn't, then could you provide me with an example of chance overriding challenge, and explain how the two scenarios are different? In BG2? Chance will never override challenge, unless you're a sh*tty player. Or it's your first time, and you're the victim of the chance. No. Lephy's, these "sure thing" examples that people have given on this thread (and on other threads where we have discussed BG2's combat) are "tips and tricks" that are typically only discovered after playing the game for hundreds and hundreds of hours. Besides, All great games have them. It's a POSITIVE, not some flaw. The only games that don't have them tend to be the ones with mind-numbingly boring, one dimensional, button mashing combat.... like Dungeon Siege 1, or Dragon Age 2. Oh, Right, Right. I forgot. Fights need to be perfectly symmetrically balanced things, with length guarantees, or else! Indeed. It's not Fair that your Cleric gets to use Harm... against a Dragon who's got Wing Buffets, Breath Attacks, 80% Magic resistance, 5 attacks per round, Spells of his own, etc. <----By the way... about that last one. Yeah, forgot to mention... in Throne of Bhaal, dragons like Saladrex and Draconis usually put Protection from Magic Weapons or Spell Immunity (necromancy) in their contingencies. Both of these spells make them immune to Harm. Still think we've got "bad design" going on here? Lets not. BG2's combat cannot be compared to some silly kids game at the park. It's far more complex. You know, you should try playing it some time. It does when the "chance reduction" slider can go from from 0 to 100, based on what the player can do. That's the definition of tactics. You certainly can. But why would any gamer want to use it? If it covers the entire screen then it will kill its caster by design. I beg to differ. No good player unleashes his valuable Death Spells without prepping the enemy first with a series of debuffs to insure that success is all but guaranteed. And With BG2, you can most definitely make it so that the enemy who isn't flat out immune to death magic, has no chance of successfully saving. 1)Score a quick KO so you can move on without having to rest, or use up your heals 2)Play the role of the master of disaster 3)Outsmart the developers 4) It's friggin FUN. <----- go ahead, counter that. Well, depends on the game. The Icewind dales would be fine without them. But BG2? BG2 would lose all its awesome. It would turn into a lesser game.... like the Icewind dales.
  21. Stun
    One small mistake... like... not knowing the rules and abilities? Do all other builds in the entire game, and all other strategies that involve a 15-minute dragon fight, require significantly less "skill" (just... thought and planning, really, but, we'll just ignore what words mean, for now, I suppose) than a build that could feasibly allow you to hit a dragon with Harm, then strike it once more before it heals itself for a large sum of hitpoints? Because, if beating the dragon at all requires a lot of "skill," then the difference is still that you can either use that lot of skill to potentially end the fight in 2 turns, or fight the thing the "normal" way by actually having to use spells that don't take it down to 1 hit point from however many the dev team decided to give it. In other words... what's more difficult? Actually fighting the dragon until it's dead? Or having a couple of lucky dice rolls be in your favor until the dragon is dead? I'm guessing the former, which involves a lot more time, resource-use, and strategic healing and tactics until the dragon's actually dead, requires more skill and effort. Unless you're somehow saying that successfully using Harm on a dragon, then killing it in one hit after that is the only thing in the game that requires you to pay attention to how you build your party and allocate all your level-ups and gear and whatnot, and that any other method of defeating the dragon can be much more easily achieved by just blindly using whatever party build you happen to make with hardly any planning or thinking or effort involved at all. ROFL what in the world are you babbling about? Dragon fights in BG2 are not like track meets, or marathons to be measured by time. Nor are they like the lottery, or the blackjack tables in Vegas, fueled by luck. They're more like a Boxing match. Sometimes if you make a mistake, you'll be in for a long tough fight. But usually, if you mess something up, you're gonna get yourself knocked out, and then its time to plan the rematch. Conversely, sometimes you step into the ring with the perfect fight plan, and you successfully carry it out, and you win easy, after a long fight. Other times, you score an early knockout yourself. Of course, you'll call that "luck", but just like boxing, you need Power to score an early KO against a tough opponent. And Power is a SKILL. That's a question I'd like to ask Josh and Tim.
  22. Stun
    No it doesn't. Yes it does, Stun. Monsters respawn in BG1 wilderness areas. They respawn. But they do not do so endlessly. And no enemy worth more than 650xp ever respawns. You cannot *grind* in BG1. So? Yes, I believe we established the fact that we will not be getting XP for kills, Like, back on page 1 or 2. Thanks for the refresher, though. You know, I didn't want to bring this up, because it seemed like a worthless tangent to the discussion, but since you've decided to hinge your entire argument on it, repeatedly, I think I'm going to need to. Can you show me where any Dev has described, explained, shown or even suggested that loot is going to replace XP as the reward for creature kills? Seems to me that you're making a rather large and baseless assumption. I don't know about you, but I've never in my life played a game where generic Wolves, Bears etc. have ever dropped anything other than pelts... or teeth. And that's not loot. That's crafting ingredients... the overly common variety, at that. Not worth fighting for on its own. But enemy loot is an interesting subject here. It doesn't fit that well in a system designed to reward you for your NON-combat skills. Imagine encountering a powerful enemy Party. And they're all Decked out with really fancy looking gear. What do you do? Do you negotiate a peaceful solution? Or do you kill them and take their stuff? 90% of all gamers will do the latter and we all know it. So what's the point? Oh wait, I'll tell you what the point is: You can't cure degenerate gameplay. So you might as well roll with it. Give us XP for kills. ooh! comedy. The rest of your post is, again, a bunch of assumptions motivated by wishful thinking. Obsidian has not discussed any of it.
  23. Stun
    No it doesn't. Well now, that doesn't fix any of the "problems" you've cited in D&D's system, does it. If players know that Killing = getting loot, they will eagerly continue grinding, and grinding, and grinding. Right. I agree. But that just brings us right back to the beginning of this discussion. If you stumble upon a group of monsters in the forest, and you get XP for dealing with them non-lethally, but no XP for wiping them out, then we haven't fixed the problem in the system. We've just shifted it somewhere else. If I built my character to be a skilled monster killer, why should I be penalized for it? Also, Lets not forget update 7. Tim Cain said we're not going to be rewarded for our body-counts.... Straw man/Personal play style opinion. Wanting XP for killing things does not mean that the gamer is some simple-minded neanderthol who wants to solve every problem by smashing it with his big hammer. And no good RPG should ever corral the player in any specific direction like that. A good RPG should reward all play styles if they succeed. And it should offer up scenarios that play into all styles. That includes killing things for XP, and outwitting things for XP
  24. Stun
    AD&D does BOTH. The system advocates rewarding XP for conflict resolution and individual creature kills. Besides, have you ever played Table-top D&D? Encounters are a big deal. They take forever to complete individually. Because Every action, every movement, every dice roll for every character and every enemy has to be manually checked, discussed, explained, mapped out and performed... one character at a time... every round. I've never met a human being who had enough waking hours in their life to "grind". As for unbalancing the game.... HA! and you guys accuse me of subject changing. This issue has absolutely jack to do with game balance. Especially in POE, which will have a level cap. Lastly, stop tossing around the term "grinding". Your posts on this thread suggest you don't have the faintest clue what that term even means. Grinding can only occur if the system has infinite respawning, and then only if players abuse that infinite respawing by revisiting the same areas they've already cleared, over and over, in order to engage in additional combat and get XP for it. And if that's happening, then the solution is to eliminate infinite respawning, isn't it. Not XP for kills. DUH. Now there's some hardcore wishful thinking... which goes against what we've already been told by the developers of this game. What happens if you don't? What happens if the game doesn't reward you for racking up your body count by 3 for killing those trolls? Will you be OK with that? Will you be ok with spending your time, energy, limited use spells and possibly some valuable limited consumables killing those trolls and then NOT getting Experience points for it?
  25. Stun
    If we're using the same character, then the skill needed to score a hit will be exactly the same. The IE games are not twitch based systems, btw. The skill we're talking about is the character's skill, not the player's. Although, the player's skill is still a factor. as a skillful player, I'll know the best buffs to use to augment my character's to-hit score. I'm not being arbitrary, or pedantic. Your arguments are fundamentally erroneous. Consistently. Melee is skill based. Luck is only 1 minor factor here. Especially in the IE games where high level fighters with their +5 weapons can have Thaco's in the negatives. I agree. But, Lets make one thing clear here. I'm not claiming that Harm is "unviable period". I'm just saying that against a dragon, Harm is less viable than a melee attack from a good Fighter, or a buffed up cleric. But even then, there are ways to make Harm the single most viable attack in the cleric's arsenal against Dragons. But it requires pre-buffing, assistance from the rest of the party, and decent planning. In fact, with the right build, and the right preparation, you can eliminate ALL luck. I did a BG2 run with a multi-classed Cleric-Mage. And I soloed a Dragon. During a Time Stop, I unleashed a spell trigger with 3x lower resistance, and then I cast Harm. That's an instant win against a dragon, Since a prepared spell trigger is uninterruptable, and 3x lower resistance will remove All of a dragon's Magic resistance, and all attacks are automatic hits during a time stop. This fulfills all the requirements to make Harm a Guaranteed effect against a dragon. Again, like I told you a year ago when we had this discussion, The system you're trying to criticize is Vast. There are ways around EVERYTHING. The Loopholes have loopholes. And that's what makes BG2 (for example) so fun. And so amazingly replayable.
×
×
  • Create New...