Stun
-
Posts
2849 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Stun
-
-
Not I. I'll echo the sentiment of Quality absolutely trumping quantity when it comes to companions.i want more than 8 charakters to join my party!!! in BG there were more than 15!!!!
You mentioned BG. This is a perfect example. BG1 had 25 companions. BG2 had 15. Numbers-wise that's a difference of 10, but content-wise the differences are infinite. By focussing on significantly less companions, the devs had the time and resources to flesh out the ones they had. And the results can't be denied. Companions are actually a strong point in BG2, when they were barely worth mentioning in BG1.
And then you've got Planescape Torment, which only had 7 companions. But they were by far the richest, deepest, most dynamically written companions of all the IE games.
But this is kinda a moot point with PE. Because it will give you the option of both routes. If you simply prefer the class/build variety that sheer quantity gives you, you will be able to take that path in PE. Just make use of the Adventurer's Hall thing, and make brand new companions whenever you wish.
-
1
-
-
-
I said no such thing.
Edit: Although I would argue that luck (specifically) is indeed a core part of the IE games' combat. They all used the D20 system after all.
-
Irrational? I'm posting absolutely nothing that wasn't already present as a rule in the IE games. Are you arguing that those games had "irrational" gameplay?
If so then YES. Call me Irrational and point me to an asylum. I'll take the IE games in all their "irrational" glory any day over the rigid, constricting, DULL nonsense you're arguing for.
-
Yep. Bet your bottom dollar that they will be included - and for that reason. Never played an RPG that didn't have them in spades.Oh, we're still stuck on the exclusion thing? Well, we'd better include fetch quests, since excluding those would obviously result in a crappy variety of quests.
....Unless you're protected from electricity. Of course, for a game to pull this off well, it can't be completely random. As proper lightning storms never are. Instead, there are always nature-based warning signs. And in a story based game, you'd probably get hints ahead of time that a coming storm could be deadly and that you should either avoid it or prepare for it. Oh wait.... That's the way it is with Death spells already.Oh, and lightning storms! Random weather that can just strike you dead at any second while you're traveling about!
But... baby steps. lets not get ahead of ourselves here. we should be asking the devs to encorporate interactive weather effects first, as that's a tall order by itself. Then later we can pontificate on the details.
You mean - when is it tactically a bad idea to use an insta-death spell on an opponent? Oh I don't know...I guess when that opponent has high magic resistance, or if that opponent has racial immunities to death spells (ie. Undead, golems). In these 2 cases it would be a bad idea to use your death spells since they're probably going to fail you.Riddle me this, Stun: When is it tactically a bad idea to instantly kill something as opposed to actually having to reduce it to 0 HP through the use of a variety of other tactics?
I imagine the differences lie in the fact that Death spells do not deal damage if they succeed. They produce a *different* effect. My apologies for pointing this out to you 13745 times already.How is that any different from having a spell that deals infinite damage?
-
Good story writing + halfway decent game design can work together to make insta-death traps the *bar none* most compelling part of a dungeon's presentation.
For one, they can, in fact, hinge on the plot. For example, you're tasked with rescuing an imprisoned NPC. And this NPC happens to be behind bars.... and these bars have death runes that you must somehow get past to free the prisoner. Or.... you see a giant treasure chest, and you know it contains something within that the story hints is *awesome*. But of course, if you want this treasure, you're going to have to find away to get past the insta-death trap upon the chest.
But insta-death traps do not need to be magic based. An unstable bridge over a huge pool of acid can also serve as an instant death, for those who fail a "reflex" saving throw and fall off it, or if they weren't Hasted and didn't run across fast enough. Or if they weren't smart enough to look down and notice that loose plank that you need to avoid stepping on...etc.
As for bad pathfinding. Sure, that's the bane of all gameplans. The solution though isn't to dumb down the game so that bad pathfinding isn't a problem. The solution is to eliminate that bad pathfinding in the first place.
-
1
-
-
Not sure what you're babbling about. The inclusion of some death spells, and even some death traps does not reduce a game down to hard kills, hard counters and "chancical dice rolls that decide your entire fate".I backed a game from a company I trust... to never reduce combat down to hard kills, hard counters, and the chancical dice rolls that decide your entire fate. I thank them for that dedication to tactical, meaningful decisions and deaths in combat.
But it IS fair to say that their exclusion constitutes a sharp departure from the very spirit of IE games - which, btw, is something that Obsidian should be mindful of in light of the way they so ruthlessly, and shamelessly named dropped those IE games during their kickstarter campaign in order to attract backers. Of course, I don't think they're going to be simply discarding those "chancical dice rolls". And you, Lephys, are going to be eating crow when the game comes out and you discover that life & death level LUCK will indeed be playing a huge factor in combat and dungeon crawling, despite your interpretation of Sawyer's post.
WTF! What difference does that make?Also, for what it's worth, traps don't move around of their own free will, target whomever they choose, and kill you instantly regardless of armor/HP values.
If a game has, say, a disentigrate trap, which can insta-kill its victims if they fail their saving throw, then the system has ALREADY met each and every one of the whiny gripes you've made on this thread. Period. The fact that the trap is stationary and indescriminate makes no difference whatsoever here.
So yeah, cut the inane bs already and tell it like it is: You don't want fatal traps. After all, ANY trap worth taking seriously requires a hard counter. Unless your idea of dealing with traps is to just run right through them as if they're not there. (the act of disarming a trap is, by definition, the deployment of a hard counter)
-
Yeah, Cloaks looked absolutely horrid in NWN1. They didn't even look like cloaks. Instead, they looked like giant, ugly potato sacks. And they had no animation whatsoever.
-
Temple of Elemental Evil did them marvelously. they fluttered in the air naturally when you moved, and stood still when you did.We are currently experimenting with cloaks. We know people like them!
That, and they simply looked really cool when a swordsman did a fancy spinning move in melee.
-
Negatory, Ghost Rider. You see, the game's abstraction of "health" has already defined the state of "death" as the displacement of the entire, variably-sized health pool. Therefore, if a spell simply produces death, it deals infinite damage. As opposed to a spell that only deals 50 damage, and, therefore, only kills things with 50-or-fewer hitpoints. Ignoring the fact that the damage can be mitigated/altered between the casting of the spell and the actual application of damage.
We've already been through this with you, son. Insta-death is not a damage mechanic. It technically isn't part of the "health-abstraction" at all. And it doesn't need to be. Instead, it is to be grouped in the same category as Non-health affecting spells, of which any *good* spell system will have many. Categorize it with Stun, and sleep, petrification, Hold, and expell types of spells. And know that despite your apocolyptic fears and willfull disbelief, it can, (and has for years) actually co-exist with all good "health pool" reducing systems.
Oh, that's an easy one! Allow me. For the last half dozen pages (including this very post I'm responding to), you have consistantly ignored the fact that death spells come with a large and nearly all-encompassing list of counters, defense mechanisms, preventions, methods of enhancements, methods of diminishments, limitations, restrictions, consequences, and other factors tied to them in the system so as to render FALSE anyone's claim that they're simply nothing more than a basic "Heads you win, tails you lose" type of dead-end power. Like a Light switch, or some other retarded comparison you'd attempt to describe them as.Not talking about those. I'm talking about All Insta-death spells. They all come with so many caveats, so many tangeables, so many counters, so many ways they can fail, so many ways they can be made more powerful, or weaker, used, stopped, delayed...
To ignore all this and just dismiss them as nothing more complicated than a heads or tails coin-flip is either deliberate dishonestly, or just plain old ignorance of the system being discussed.
I'm not sure what I'm ignoring.
You're never going to overcome this bottom line. And there's no way you will understand these spells and what they Actually contribute to a game until you actually play a game that they exist in.
Edit: Ooh! look at those pretty sentence-ending prepositions! My high school english teachers would be proud.
-
None. And it doesn't have to. Unlike the modern day, soulless, rigid RPGs you're used to playing, Back in the Days of the IE games, Many spells actually didn't do damage. They had different functions. Imagine that. different functions! Yes, yes, I know, That sounds silly. Spells aren't "cool" unless they cause explosions, pretty lights, and damage. Right? <derp>Then please tell me, good sir... how much damage does something that instantly-kills you do?
Not talking about those. I'm talking about All Insta-death spells. They all come with so many caveats, so many tangeables, so many counters, so many ways they can fail, so many ways they can be made more powerful, or weaker, used, stopped, delayed...I would ask that you please stop trying to start an argument over the spells in BG2 and in IWD that happened to sort of cause death but are obviously not of the instant-death variety against which I am arguing
To ignore all this and just dismiss them as nothing more complicated than a heads or tails coin-flip is either deliberate dishonestly, or just plain old ignorance of the system being discussed.
Therefore, a Death spell who's success or failure is dependent on the size of the target's Health pool would fit within that system's "fundamental concept". Yes? Of course, we have already cited at least *two* types of death spells in the IE games that functioned precisely that way. But you still oppose the existance of those spells. So no. You're disputing your OWN arguments here.It has a point to those who comprehend fundamental concepts. Death (in RPG mechanics) is the point at which you've sustained as-much-or-more damage than your health pool allowed. Therefore, it exists on the variable scale of damage
Yet, any good spell system will have those Binary spell effects. If it doesn't, then people will complain of its unimaginitive, one dimensional nature.The Hold effect is inherently binary. You are either prevented from moving, or you are not prevented from moving. If you're moving, then nothing's preventing your movement, and vice versa. As you, yourself pointed out.
Poison is another. You either have poison in your bloodstream, or you don't. There is no range that goes from 0 to poison. There is only not-poisoned, and poisoned.
Hence, we have phrases like "half-dead," and "close to death," while we don't have phrases like "half-poisoned" or "he's close to poison."
If you're not poisoned, you're fine. If you're not Held, you're fine. If you're not dead, you're not necessarily fine.
Continue ignoring context, would you? This is fun.
That's kinda the point I've been making here. It pains me to see people not wanting the 'binary' spell effects like Hold, stun, silence, sleep, and insta-death etc. in their RPGs. These are the things that make the spell system interesting, and NON-DULL.
Then your analogy is a straw man. Because no one here is arguing that we should ONLY have Save or die (ie. an on/off switch), but that a robust system (a dimmer) should ALSO include insta-death spells (ie. the ability to press that dimmer and cut the lights instantly)Obviously you've never used a dimmer switch? The knob can be turned all the way down to turn off the light, OR it can simply be pressed as a binary toggle.
-
As usual, you're not saying anything here. You're just changing the subject. All powers, abilities and spells in a good RPG are finite, and their success always hinges on the offensive and defensive capabilities of their owners and their targets. ALL of them. Including death spells.There are. And, for that matter, they're also in the game. And the ultra-powerful melee combatant is still finitely powerful, and will still be less of a threat to more heavily-armored opponents with higher health quantities than he will be to lesser-armored opponents with lower health quantities, and he can be affected by any number of status effects (disarm, weaken, etc.) that further affect the extent of damage of a blow from his weapon against a given target, all without even preventing him from successfully striking the target (which is yet another option). Not to mention the variable status of the target (stoneskin, Mage Armor, etc.) and its effect on the same foe.
Nope. Not in BG2. Not in Icewind Dale. Not in Icewind Dale 2. Try playing those games sometime. Do it. You'll see for yourself. Then you'll come back humbled, and eating crow. Apologising for the gross ignorance you've been displaying for a half dozen pages now on this subject. You'll comeback and say: "Wait a minute! Death spells weren't all that. I sometimes used them and sometimes didn't. They didn't seem all that different to me than the other spells...."And yet, an instant-death spell remains infinitely powerful
A distinction without a point. Different spells do different things. Some don't do *any* damage. And this is by design. A Hold spell will never only 85% hold a target. It will either hold them 100% or it won't hold them at all. That is the system we're discussing.because if you reduce its damage by 15%, it still deals 85% of infinite damage to you.
A dimmer switch that lets you instantly turn off the light would indeed be awesome. It would also constitute something you've been ranting against since your first post on this thread. Who are you kidding?False, yet again. If there are 10 total abilities (lights) in the game (there can't be infinite... so I've picked a finite example number), and 9 are dimmer-switch dials, and one is a simple on/off switch, the on/off switch isn't doing anything the dimmer dials haven't already given you the capability to do.
-
LOLThere are MUCH cleverer ways in which to threaten the player with crazy deaths (and allow the player to do the same to others) than to make up a "this kills you" ability that's impeded by a single saving throw/resistance check.
For that matter, there are MUCH cleverer ways in which to threaten the player with crazy deaths than simply present him with a powerful melee opponent who can kill him with just a few hits with a sword due to sheer power.
Therefore, lets get rid of melee combat? Or power differentials in combat?
That's your logic. Lephys logic. Gotta love it.
BG2 had a bit of everything, actually. And what made it great WAS that variety. Take it away and the experience is ruined. There were no arbitrary phylosophical limits in BG2's combat. None. It did not feel the least bit rigid. Didn't feel like the devs were imposing their own, singular, miguided viewpoints of what makes combat fun. Instead, Everything was tossed into the system and then it was up to the player to do whatever he wanted to do to win, or whatever he thought was fun. And that included giving the player insta-death spells. And giving the player the ability to spam the battlefield with traps so as to avoid even boss battle combat outright.BG2 obviously had abilities that weren't instantaneous, single-die-roll kill-or-don't-do-anything's. So, what I'm saying is, look to those for inspiration, and let's leave the overly simplistic chance-death spells at home.
The bottom line in this entire discussion is that there's two sides. one side wants it all, while the other side wants LESS.
-
Wow! good post! And yes, those are some good examples there. It *IS* true (no matter how much people here wish to stick their heads in the sand and deny it) that insta-death/hard counters did not occur in the IE games in some vacuum. Instead, both were seamlessly implemented and they made sense within the greater system.
Interesting that you'd mention the Mindflayers in BG2. They serve another example. When encountered in groups they can be excrutiatingly nasty opponents. But, like all enemies, there was 100 ways to defeat them. And, amazingly enough, "using death spells" is not the best way. In fact, it was one of the hardest ways. Since they happened to be 90% magic resistant, which meant that if you were willing to gamble both your attack round and your spell arsenal on trying to take them out with "short-cut" death magic, that was your perogative. 90% of the time though, you failed and wasted your spell, and your round. However, if you got lucky and managed to bypass their resistances AND they failed their save, then you friggin DESERVED the instakill. You were one of Tymora's favored.
I don't see how someone who's played BG2 could look at such a system and say: "no way! shouldn't be there!" The only argument anyone can rationally make has already been made. Which is: well, some players will simply keep reloading until they get lucky. And to that, I say: Yeah, Ok. Sure. There's only, 10,000,000 illithids in BG2. Anyone who's hell bent on making sure their finger of death succeeds against them no matter what should probably be left alone in their instanity to butcher their own game experience as they wish. They are, in fact, not actually taking any shortcuts. They're doing things the long, hard way. They'll probably never finish the game. They'll be stuck in the underdark until BG3 comes out..
-
And of course, I've been debating with absolutely no one else on this thread. The anti-death spell crowd = just lephys, don't you know.Obviously our arguments are whatever you say they are. I think I've personally cited save-scumming as one of the main reasons for doing away with instant-death, at least... oh, 037 times,
Self absorbed poster is self absorbed.
-
^ Sure, if there is real risk in casting or being hit by such a spell. As long as the spell fits into the game world, that's fine. I think that people get nervous when they perceive Obsidian wandering away from IE and D&D type gaming. But the game system can have a different internal logic, and potentially be much more challenging. With no resurrection, no healing potions and slow regeneration of health points, I think death will have real consequences in P:E.
Indeed. With healing being rare, no resurrection mechanic, and a focus on some new resting mechanic to combat the degenerate gamer tactic of 'rest spamming', I imagine Death will have a couple of very real consequences in PE. Mainly: 1) Save scumming; and 2) Yer-dead-and-you-can-do-nothing-about-it!
Hahaha, well, will you look at that! 2 of the very arguments that the anti-death spell crowd has been using ad nausium on this thread.
-
<gag>
Lephys, you said this:
Is it your contention that the inclusion of death spells into an already varied and robust system eliminates the player's ability to make decisions that impact things?but the whole point of an RPG is to actually get to make decisions that impact things.
If not, then why post such a moronic straw man?
-
LOL @ your epic straw man.I don't think Sawyer hates luck. I just think he hates it playing too big of a part. Randomness is a wonderful supplemental element in RPGs, but the whole point of an RPG is to actually get to make decisions that impact things. If you make excellent tactical decisions in combat, for example, then you should always do better than someone who made worse tactical decisions in combat. With luck thrown in, you can possibly do a little better or worse than someone else who makes the exact same decisions, but simple luck should not overturn all your efforts and cleverness.
With insta-death spells, you're using extremely narrow tactics. "Resist this effect or die." So what do you get in return? The same kind of narrow counter-tactics. "Resist this effect or fail to produce the effect that I must either resist or die!"
What happens when you run into an enemy "party" of necromancers, and they all start hurling insta-death at you? The person with 6 mages in their party might be okay, I suppose. You could cast 6 mass-silences, and hope that the overwhelming odds mean that the necromancers don't resist ALL those silence effects. Then, you hope that your party resists whatever death-effects come your way.
Tactics don't depend on the absence of chance, but they're also overruled when combat becomes sitting around watching completely-random dice rolls single-handedly determine such huge outcomes, like "there was totally nothing wrong with you, but now YOU DIE!" If I move into the best possible position to attack a given enemy, and use the best abilities, I'm going to miss/fail part of the time, but the same is true of attacking from a terrible position and using the worst abilities. But missing 5 out of 10 times while using significantly better tactics produces a better outcome than missing 5 out of 10 times while using terrible tactics. When facing things like insta-death spells, your tactical decisions take a backseat to the dice rolls, because the outcome of JUST the dice rolls, themselves, is so great.
Basically, when chance and tactics don't work in conjunction, things aren't as interesting. That's why chance is in there in the first place. You don't want to just go "well, I'm making the best decisions, so they ALWAYS WORK PERFECTLY!" Hence, chance. But you also don't want to say "well, the only thing that really matters here is whether or not this dice lands on less than 50 or greater than 50."
So, like I said, I don't actually mind the death effect, if it requires actual tactics to pull off. If it's not just a single dice roll, then awesome. If something's going to kill you (within a tactical combat setting), it doesn't need to be instant. It needs to be tricky to pull off.
I just think the threat of death from a spell that causes it should be just as complex and tactical as the threat of death from damage or any other combination of combat factors. Not a simple "Avada Kedavra." That's all.
The inclusion of a few death spells does not mean they're going to be playing too big of a part... in anything. Nor does it mean combat is reduced to narrower tactics. Nor does their use mean everyone is sitting around just depending on completely random dice rolls.
Oh, and Chance and tactics aren't mutually exclusive. One does not automatically cancel out the other. Nor is a player prevented from using one to enhance the other. Both have successfully co-existed in the same system for DECADES.
Good God, Lephys, could you have posted a more absurd response?
-
That's... not true. We've *got* The stated rationale by PE's lead designer on this very thread. No need for guess work.Thanks, there is a a design rationale Obsidian is following for not including death spells and it revolves around the difference between tactics and strategy.
Sawyer doesn't want death spells because he believes that most gamers are crappy players who will just reload if something bad suddenly happens to their party members. ie. "degenerate gaming", as he calls it. He's infatuated with this topic. Every single one of his design decisions is based on trying to "cure" the masses of their bad habits. (and no, his "hard counter" argument is not relevant. It's a red herring. Players use hard counters for everything, including basic melee)
Personally, I see nothing but failure coming from such a mindset. He should be focussing on creating a *fun*, dynamic system with all the options, and less about trying to second guess the save scumming degenerates among us.
^that's a point I tried to make for a few pages, but it mostly fell on deaf ears. Death spells in the IE games were not the game/system changers that their detractors are making them out to be. They were merely another tool. One of many that those games gave you. They were, in fact, borderline redundant. But there's no such thing as redundancy in an RPG, as one person's redundant is another person's Role-playing Options.I understand your concern, but D&D is just one gaming system (one that wasn't designed for CRPGs ). The IE games, to me and anyone who knew the PnP rules (likely), weren't much of a challenge in terms of death spells. There are a lot of other ways to handle debilitating effects to party members, especially in a game without resurrection, that can be just as punitive; or even more so.
The more important, philosophical, issue though, is with regards to Luck and whether a game's system should have it. This debate started with that topic. Sawyer says he doesn't like it (cuz, you know, people will just reload 'til they get good luck!). I say a system becomes boring really fast without it. And that's where death spells come in.....
-
A system that doesn't have Both types is, OBJECTIVELY, and QUANTIFIABLY, more limited in scope. But you've been arguing for the exclusion of one, while we've been arguing for the inclusion of both. Because that's how the Infinity engine games did it.My one-and-only actual point is that an instantaneous, all-or-nothing death spell is quantifiably more tactically-restrictive than any other spell/ability in its place that offers a range of potential effects rather than a single effect.
So yeah, stop spinning your stance to make it look like you're arguing for the larger, all encompassing, system, when in fact, you want something far more limited.
-
If by static, you mean 'permanent', then Neither do death spells.... in any game that has them. Although you're still wrong. I listed a few spells that, in fact, have 'permanent' effects (they don't expire on their own), and I can list a dozen more for you if you'd like. But I do get a chuckle out of this NEW criteria you've thrown at us: If it's permanent then it's a No Go! Hello, Genius, Weapon damage in the IE games is also permanent, unless:
They don't produce a static effectI think that's good enough to prove the point. You owe me. You will answer a Yes-or-No question for me now, Without your usual dodging, or stream of consciousnessness blathering. YES OR NO, Lephys, since all these spells produce just a single static, invariable effect (just like insta-death spells do!), should they be removed?
1) You rest for many days.
or
2) You reverse that damage with MAGIC!
And #2 is the remedy for every effect and state in the entire game.
While the rest of your points could be easily dismissed by any 7 year old who's following this discussion (since they've all already been countered repeatedly... over and over), I do feel the need to personally address this part. Dungeons & Dragons, as well as all the Infinity engine games.... are *party* based. And all aspects of combat, from the mechanics to the encounters, are designed and balanced around the assumption of a party. This means that you are not stating any sort of relevant difference here. The vast majority of death spells are single-target. And when one of your party members dies, You (the player; the party) 1) can still do stuff; 2) can still deal with the changed state. In fact, that's the whole point behind putting death spells in games in the first place: to force changed states.Also, you can still do things while Silenced, and while Slowed, etc. You're just left to deal with a changed factor.
Done. (scroll up) As much as you may think you're making sense, all you're doing is thinking narrowly, in the complete absense of any D&D and IE game experience. News flash: Death is, in fact, Temporary. It's temporary in all these games. In fact, for good players, Death is a very short duration spell. It lasts half a round.If you could tell me how that doesn't make any sense, that would be lovely.
Lephys, No one is stupid enough to ask for Death spells without also asking for Counters, resistances and cures to be put into the system along side them. So please, for the sake of the *SENSE* you keep harping on, stop using the word "static". Nothing is static in a good RPG.
It doesn't need to be. It can totally fill out its own role in combat by serving as a result. A result of an action, an inaction, or just plain old bad luck (or good luck).Death is not a status effect.
Stop trying to create your own silly goalposts.
-
No, Lephys, I did NOT choose Maces and Warhammers to "try and make it look like the idea of functionally different weapons doesn't exist".You specifically chose a mace and a warhammer -- two remarkably similar weapons -- to try to make it look like the very idea of functionally different weapons doesn't even exist. For what reason, I have no idea. So, I chose to actually consider weapons with relevant functional differences.
Lets start from the beginning here and get you up to speed with the context of this discussion and what was being debated. First, Karkarov pointed out that death spells are redundant in combat because they do not really add anything unique to the system (ie. You can already kill someone with a sword. You can already be more deadly with a meteor swarm. Your rogue can insta kill his target with an assassination attack etc. etc.) He argues that, therefore, Death spells should be removed because they are redundant. NOW, Fast forward to my response. Why not remove redundant weapons too? I chose Maces vs. Warhammers because they are similarly redundant. There's nothing a mace can do in the hands of any character that a Warhammer cannot. Therefore, using Karkarov's logic, we remove maces, since they are redundant.
As you can see, The logic here is still flawless, despite the fact that the argument itself is a terrible one. What self-respecting RPG fan would ever advocate a smaller pool of weapon choices, even IF this smaller pool reduces redundancies? But that's what he wants. Scroll up and read his last post for yourself. He's *Literally* arguing for the removal of redundant spells. As a huge fan of spell casters in RPGs, I take personal offense to this. Devs should include those spells anyway, and then let US, the players, decide what's redundant and what isn't. As it stands, a game without death spells, means I can no longer role-play a decent Necromancer. But I digress.
Since every other attack/ability in the game possesses a MINIMUM of 2 possible outcomes -- success or failure -- and my point revolves around the differences between instant-death abilities and all other abilities, then we can obviously rule out "failure" as moot to try to evaluate as a difference. I don't know how to make that any clearer.
When a sword hits (doesn't fail), it can do multiple things. When a fireball hits (doesn't fail), it can do multiple things. When an instant-death spell hits (doesn't fail), it can do one thing. Reduce your HP to 0. When a sword hits you, it deals a finite, variable amount of damage that does not necessarily reduce your HP to 0. When a fireball strikes you, it deals a finite, variable amount of damage that does not necessarily reduce your HP to 0. When an instant-death spell hits you, it doesn't care how much HP you have, or what your armor is, or any other effect-mitigating/altering factor in the universe. It reduces your HP to 0.
Nope. It doesn't matter that your sword can do 100 different things after you score a hit. At the very most, we may chalk this up to a nice, robust melee combat system. Great. But what's that have to do with magic? A decent magic system will also see a mage being able to do 100 different things with the energy he calls forth from his fingertips. And who's to say that Death can't be one of those effects?
Well, who besides Lephys....
Stop repeatedly apologizing and answer the f*cking question already. You made a grotesquely generalized claim that death spells ignore All combat system factors. In fact you've made this claim at least a dozen times. Now support it with evidence.I'm sorry.
I see you need a breadcrumb trail. All right. I only covered the nature of melee combat? Okay, lightning bolt. Once it hits you, it can deal various amounts of damage, based on lots of factors. Even then, it only deals a finite possible range of damage, so that the extent of the effects of that damage on a given character depend on their current health, possibly armor (or magic resistance... really depends on the system used). Poison: even after it hits you, it deals various amounts of damage, lasts various amounts of time, and even affects other things (such as regeneration of health/stamina in some instances).
Lephys, have you ever played a game that has mind effecting spells? How about a game that has invisibility spells? Or healing spells? or summoning spells? or buffing spells? or silence spells? ie. spells who's point is not "lets take away health and see who wins the game!" derp.
If you could give me an example of a spell that isn't an instant-death spell that produces just a single static, invariable effect, that would be so lovely. I would very much appreciate it. ^_^
Just one? Hahaha. That's not the way we do things here on the internet. No, no no, mon ami. Here on the internet our goals are to BURY, and EMBARRASS, and graphically Demonstrate how clueless our opponent really is.
Lets do it. Off the top of my head, here is a modest (and extremely non-complete) list of spells that produce just a single static, invariable effect.
1) Hold Person
2) Silence
3) Invisibility
4) Slow
5) Haste
6) Flesh to Stone
7) Stone to flesh
8.) Power Word Silence
9) Power Word Blind
10) Power Word Sleep
11) Command
12) Doom
13) Breach
14) Infravision
15) Shield
16) Symbol: Stun
17) Blindness
18) Deafness
19) Mordenkanen's Sword
20) Horror
21) Bless
22) Entangle
23) Silence 15' Radius
24) Hold Animal
25) Hold Monster
26) Greater command
27) Spook
28) Charm Person
29) Charm Animal
30) Charm Monster
31) Dire Charm
32) Greater Malison
33) Emotion: Hopelessness (BG2's implementation)
34) Otiluke's Resilient Sphere
35) Domination
36) Mass Domination
37) Feeblemind
38) Bigby's Clenched Fist
39) Energy Drain
40) Imprisonment
I think that's good enough to prove the point. You owe me. You will answer a Yes-or-No question for me now, Without your usual dodging, or stream of consciousnessness blathering. YES OR NO, Lephys, since all these spells produce just a single static, invariable effect (just like insta-death spells do!), should they be removed?
-
2
-
-
LOLOh, I'm sorry... You were referring to simply to like "this mace looks like a mace and deals 8 damage, and this warhammer looks like a warhammer and does 9 damage." My mistake. I thought you were talking about functional differences in weapons. If that's the case, then what difference would there be between having 17 different weapons that all function the same way, and just one weapon type (aside from the mild jollies we get from seeing various models represented and more easily pretending that we're using "different" weapons)?
What in the world are you babbling about? I asked a very clear, very specific question. If you can't answer it, then just say so. No point in spewing out a stream of incoherant nonsense to try and mask the fact that you're Dodging.
You're saying nothing here, since success is only ONE of the possible outcomes of any of those spells. Or any spell in general. And of course all death spells have "you can die from this!" as a common demoninator. They wouldn't be called Death spells otherwise. DUH. But again, you're saying nothing here. All Sleep based spells have Sleep as a common effect. Should we be getting rid of those too?Poor word choice on my part. Their effect is the same, when successful, no matter what.
Oh? Can you cite me a death spell that ignores all other factors? Because I can't think of a single one. They're ALL governed by many, many factors, various limitations, various caveats.If a successful hit from a spell (on a valid target; I don't care if there's one spell that works on everything, or 300 different death spells for 300 different enemies... if there's one that works on a given enemy, then obviously that's the one I'm talking about) ignores all other factors
I'll give you a quick example. All spells are subject to an opponent's spell resistance check. (this is seperate from a saving throw, btw.) It's a mechanic that is essentially the same as an Armor rating check on a Warrior who is faced with a sword swing from an opponent in melee. In fact, in 3rd edition D&D, it's EXACTLY the same (same dice roll). Moreover, a mage may make his spell more powerful by taking feats like Spell penetration. And this would be the same as a warrior who takes Weapon focus.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The deeper you dig, here, the more you'll realize that Insta-death spells are Buried in factors. It's as complex and varied as standard melee. It's just different.
Do yourself a favor: learn the basics behind the mechanics you're attempting to debate.
That's a big SO WHAT. You are simply describing the nature of melee combat. Magic, (ALL magic, not just insta-death) Works differently than melee, and has always worked differently. Are you in favor of removing all spells that happen to just have one static, unchangeable outcome? Because there's a HELL of a lot more than just Insta-death spells that suffer this so-called "flaw". From a quick guess, I'd estimate that a good 90% do.A sword that strikes light/zero armor can deal higher damage and cause bleeding, for example.
I haven't. Never once have I falsely claimed that there's ever been a spell in D&D or in any of the IE games that features absolute death, no matter what. Why? because If I had ever claimed such a thing, I would be ignorantly wrong.
If there's no such thing, then why have you wasted your breath this entire thread?
Straw man. There's no such thing.absolute death no matter what"
You, on the other hand, have repeatedly peddeled this exact claim, even after more than one poster has flooded you with examples to disprove 1) absolute death and 2) no matter what....in every single death spell in D&D and in the IE games.
Of course, at this point, you have no *choice* but to utterly ignore all these clear factual examples. To do anything else would be to abandon your STRAW MAN.
-
1
-
-
So wait... having different weapon types that work to varying effects under various circumstances
Begging your pardon? Can you describe for me the ways/effects/circumstances in which a mace works differently than a Warhammer?
False. Some death spells only work on specific types of creatures. Some work on all creatures within a specific power range. Some work on all creatures regardless of their level of power. Some act by way of life essense removal, while others are based on bodily destruction (finger of death vs. disentigrate, for instance). Some come in the form of melee weapons and thus must work within the confines of melee combat rules (see: Black blade of disaster) Some are single target, others are AOE. Some have saving throws, others don't. Some require different types of saves than others. Some are "all or nothing" in their natures, others do damage even if the target saves. Some have instant casting times, others have medium or long casting times. Some require a ranged touch. Some require a melee hit. Others don't require either one.is likened to having death spells(which work the same way against everything),
Go ahead Lephys, Find me as many functional differences between a mace and a warhammer. Take all the time you need.
Straw man. There's no such thing.absolute death no matter what"
NWN2 influences: what to take and what to leave
in Pillars of Eternity: General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted · Edited by Stun
First off, If we're dealing with a mage who's level is so low that he only has 1 copy of magic missile per day and its only firing off 1 missile, then at this point:
1) There's nothing stopping this mage from using his physical attacks (sling, quarterstaff), which he can also use 7000+ times per day and do the same amount of damage as his magic missile spell.
2) The fighter in question is also level 1, which means he's only doing about 1-8 damage with his sword and only attacking once per round as well. It's his ONLY option. And he can MISS (as opposed to the mage's magic missile, which doesn't)
As both gain levels, the differences begin to occur, but they're still not as wide and catostrophic as you're making them out to be.
A) As the mage increases in levels, he gets more spells. He gains the ability to cause damage to multiple opponents.... for extended periods of time, sometimes with just a single casting of a single spell. Additionally he acquires mage-based physicial tools (staves and wands that allow him to attack every single round with a magical projectile or effect... without using up his spell arsenal.)
B) The fighter advances as well. His sword is still doing 1-8 damage, but his skills allow him to augment this in various ways (more damage, more attacks per round, less chances to miss)
Of course, unless we're strictly talking about a PvP scenario, none of this matters. The assumption here is that we're dealing with a PARTY. That being the case, specific attack options for different classes not being completely equal doesn't really matter. Parties should be working together. in a Party, your mage and fighter should be complementing each other to eliminate all weaknesses. Ie. Your mage should be disabling your opponents so that your fighter can crush them with ease... and vise versa. Your fighter should be whittling down your opponents so that your mage can take them out en mass with a single AOE nuke.
Not sure why anyone would want to discard such a system in favor of one where mages are essentially no different in round-by-round melee as fighters or whatever, for no reason but to maintain the "equality and balance!" you believe is so vital.