Lephys

I dunno about that. Maybe someone else's children, to whom they had no personal attachment. No, no, I know it isn't that bad. I'm with you there. Some people start thinking that they're literally evil. Like, their goal is to do terrible things. But, really, it isn't. Worst-case scenario, they're greedy and/or oblivious to the negative effects of some of their priorities on the quality of their products. I might go so far as to say that they might do anything they can get away with within the context of normal project development. In other words, as long as it seems like it'll sell well, they'll make any amount of terrible decisions regarding a project. I really just think big companies kind of lose touch with the human factor. I don't think they mean to, and it's not like they're just excused or something, but, they don't SEEK OUT evil or bad game design. They just... start assuming too many things. It's kind of like whenever you're really hungry, and you go to a buffet or some party where you're just going to prepare a plate of food, and you almost always put much more food on the plate than you can actually eat (without getting a stomach ache). And, you keep sort of thinking "I'll just not get quite so much this time," but then you still end up doing it anyway.

See, I don't even think it's claiming to be a solution to anything. Any more than having the color blue in the armor/clothing dye-color options is solving the problem of the absence of blue. It's just something that could actually be interesting. I honestly can't say exactly how I'd feel about it, and would be curious to try it out to see how it affects my gameplay. The idea is very interesting, as simply an option for the sake of interest. Especially since it'd probably be quite easy to implement (it's not a matter of changing calculations and such, but rather, information display/conveyance.)

See, same thing, except it's not limited-use like a spell. See, I missed that part where it was actually fact that you can make it a sure thing. That was the only reason I barely commented on the sure-thing part, and stuck to analyzing the base ability (which is chance-based, until you make it a sure thing). Also, for what it's worth, I understand this. That is a clever use of what you have at your disposal to take advantage of the rules. It hasn't been my intention to say that doing that, in the context of the game, doesn't require any work on the player's part. Setting up that situation. The point is... well... *points to next quote* It's not the setup and usage of the spell to effect that's akin to a cheat code. It's the effect of the spell, itself. That's why I just kept using the base spell specs as an example, even though everyone keeps saying "yeah but what if this?". Sure, you can adjust its likelihood of working or not, via clever knowledge of/use of the system and rules. More power to ya. However, you can already do that with everything else; Boost weapon proficiency, so your attacks will more likely not-miss. It doesn't make them do infinite damage, it just makes them work. And, you can never do anything clever that makes that spell (Harm) have the effect it does. It can never work better or work worse. It can only work, or not-work. You can even cleverly prep a heavily armored foe, for example, so that some sword attack (if swords, say, weren't effective against heavy armor) ends up being ridiculously effective where it wouldn't have been without all the prepwork. But, it still doesn't have some all-powerful effect, like "you just die; I don't even care how many HP you have or how much damage I deal... I deal all of it... or all of it, -1". In other words, if you take that spell out of the game, and you just use conventional means to damage the dragon to death, it relies on your actual tactical use of the tools at your disposal to effectively reduce the dragon down to 1 health (to match the effects of the Harm spell). Whereas, with the Harm spell in, and it selected as your battle strategy, all those efforts are put towards simply getting an ability to not NOT-work. A single ability. You're just adjusting passive numerical factors to get it to work. You're not making anything actually work to a better or worse degree. You're just making it work. a) Not really. That's the thing. It's always just as good as it ever is... in effect. That further reinforces my point, too, that it's binary in a world full of non-binary things. It's either useless (if you can't get it to work) or it's AMAZING! b) There are plenty of ways in which to make a spell function in an interesting manner without having it essentially just perform a specific amount of damage. A spell that knocks someone back, and cleverly using it to position them, then knock them into some lava, or a spike wall (thus generating a relatively GOOD effect, compared to what it could do if you hadn't used it specifically and tactically in that manner) is a thousand times more interesting than a spell that always does enemy-health-minus-one damage to an enemy, but functions on the same defense/resistance system as any other spell in the game but just has extra low base chance of working. In other words, I'd much rather cleverly using my abilities to produce interesting results, than to spend all my cleverness and effort just getting the ability to not-fail, and then produce the one, extremely useful result that it always produces as long as it doesn't fail.

Yep, 'cause that's exactly what I said. Man... you just... you get me, Stun. *tear* Well, then a round of applause for the people who made deicisons in the Throne of Bhaal's design. If by "here" you mean "this new, Throne of Bhaal scenario that I, Stun, know for a fact that you, Lephys, weren't even referring to," then no. Now, if you meant the scenario in which you can kill a huge dragon in 2 turns, then yes. I'm not sure why my mind would've suddenly changed, so the "still think the same thing?" question is admittedly a bit puzzling. It's not my fault you don't comprehend the function of metaphor. I wasn't comparing BG2's combat to an obstacle course. I was comparing the design of a video game encounter with the goal/function of challenge in mind to the design of an obstacle course with the goal/function of challenge in mind. And, sidenote: just for what it's worth, military personnel train on obstacle courses, and they are not kids. Nor are they in a park. Nor are they playing a game. So, completely unrelated to the point, but I'm baffled by your arbitrary simplification of obstacle courses. Really? I thought it was: "1. ( usually used with a singular verb ) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle. 2. ( used with a plural verb ) the maneuvers themselves." I didn't know "I'll allocate all my points throughout the game so that I have the highest percentage chance of landing a Harm spell!" was a tactic. Tactics are what you do within the scope of a given battle. You can change tactics mid-battle, multiple times, even. You can't get to a dragon, then decide you'd rather rebuild your entire character to no-longer boost your chances of using Harm, because you've decided against using Harm to try and kill the dragon. Again, if that's tactics, then, buying 10 tickets instead of 1 is a tactic when playing the lottery. Your move, lottery! Choose wisely! Nah. The entire game's encounter map isn't limited to just "the screen." You could be standing 5 pixels "off-screen" from the target's given screen area, and just hit everything in that given area. "the screen" just specifies a certain area size. Okay, so you cast 4 prep spells, THEN you have a greater (though still lesser than other things) chance of successfully insta-deathing them. Why didn't you just cast 5 completely different spells, and they'd probably already be dead by now? And what's the point of a death spell's extreme degree of effect, in relation to non-death spells ("regular" damage spells) lesser degree of effect, if you're simply trading "overcome their total hitpoints" off for "overcome the odds of this spell not hitting them"? In other words: Spell A does 40-50 damage (the opponent has... say... 300) and a pretty good chance to actually work. Spell B does kill-damage (in this case, 300 damage), but is horribly unlikely to work. One lacks damage, the other lacks probability. It's just a trade-off. And, Spell A still also has the chance to fail to do anything. So, how is that tactical? Tactical is overcoming their defenses. Eliminating a circumstantial disadvantage, or taking advantage of circumstantial factors to boost the effectiveness of a given action/choice. It's not arbitrarily having the ability to instantly win, much less adjusting the odds of such an ability working. A death spell isn't a tool. It's a solution. All the other things are simply tools that you use, tactically, to arrive at a solution. The death spell can not-work, but so can anything else. The thing is, nothing else solves the problem just because it didn't fail to work. You can't flank someone to hit them with the death spell where the had the least armor, or increase its effectiveness because of how you use it. It's effectiveness is absolute. 1) You can already do this with criticals and actual tactics that boost the finite, variable effectiveness of all your abilities, without an ability strictly designed to be absolute in function. 2) See #1, only add in all the ridiculously catastrophic spells and abilities you get that aren't insta-death spells. In Harry Potter, anyone who could hold a wand and shout "Avadakadavra!" could kill anyone else who didn't block the resulting green lightning. Would you rather see someone walk through a town and raze it to the ground with wind and rock and fire, or see someone waltz through shouting that and pointing at everyone they see, and hoping people don't block it? You can't magic-resist a hurricane. 3) You didn't really outsmart them, because they put it in the game. What, you clicked on "Finger of Death" in the "spells to learn" list when you leveled up? Good Heavens! HOW DID YOU DO THAT?! You genius, you. 4) So are cheatcodes. And, with wording changes, see #1... and 2. Well, that really objectively explains it. Guess I can't argue with an arbitrary claim. It wouldn't even lose just a little awesomeness, but all of it? Wow...

Nah. Just for the ills of their games. Honestly. But, yeah, people do tend to act like "Oh no! EA are the BORG! Resistance is futile! ASSIMILATE!", instead of just acknowledging that, yes, there was a statistical spike amongst big companies in poor game development decisions.

Oh, didn't you get the memo? If you make a meta-gaming-related suggestion, you're just trying to make the game more accessible... fighting the good fight. But if you make an RP-related suggestion, you're trying to tell everyone how to play their game, even if it's just a suggestion for an option... Why are we so evil, and why can't we change? *stares hopelessly at own hands*

You're so caught up in irrelevant technicalities, semantics, and misconceptions/misinterpretations-turned-perceived-strawmen that you're completely blind to the simple fact you can EITHER: A) Harm the dragon down to 1HP with a couple of successful dice rolls, then hit it for more-than-0 damage with just ONE more successful attack roll (this from a party of 6) and the dragon is dead. OR B) Not do option A, and you actually have to fight the dragon for significantly longer than 2 turns. The EXTREME effect of the Harm spell's successful use upon the dragon is ridiculously encouraging, while the extreme unlikelihood that you'll pull it off without trying a whole bunch of times is incredibly DIScouraging. It's a lottery. Sure, you can buy more tickets, or fewer tickets, but it's a "kill this big bad thing easily" lottery, is what it is. Also, for what it's worth, I have no need for you to believe anything, quite frankly. If it makes you feel better to pretend I'm lying and arguing a bunch of stuff you decided I was arguing, then turn around and accuse me of using strawmen every time that happens, be my guest. Doesn't hurt me any, so I sure hope it helps you sleep at night.

Sure. (Although, repeating the fight with a similar party will cause it to be relatively simple the second time. The challenge is in figuring out new ways to do it when the party has different capabilities.) The key word there being "relatively." If it isn't, then could you provide me with an example of chance overriding challenge, and explain how the two scenarios are different? Also, the issue already exists when there's a chance to do it. Being able to make it a sure thing is compounding the issue, if that's possible to do. The issue is with the extent of the effect of the spell/ability on your offensive capabilities, relative to the thing that's supposed to be difficult. And, the argument could be made, "what if the devs WANT you to be able to turn any difficult fight into an easy one?" To which I call bad design. Pointlessly bad design. It just plain doesn't make any sense. That's basically putting in fights that are only difficult if you do it wrong. It's simple: Imagine you're going to set up an obstacle course for people to run. The whole point of the obstacle course is to be a challenge, right? "You have to get from here, to here, but there are things impeding your path." Okay, so, NOW give them an ability that has a 1% chance to let them just leap over the entire course and land on the finish line. In what way is that at ALL meeting the entire purpose of the obstacle course? That is, by definition, overriding the entire design of the obstacle course. You wouldn't build a ground-based obstacle course and challenge someone who could fly with it, would you? No. It would immediately be no challenge. So why toss in a "you MIGHT be able to fly, if you'd like to roll some dice and see" ability? It's functionally a chance-based cheat code. No amount of chance reduction justifies the functional design of such a thing giving you a stupidly immense amount of power. Look, I'm actually all for insta-death spells and such, with the proper design. You should never be anywhere even close to capable of taking a creature with hundreds of HP and oodles of ways of making it very difficult to hit and/or damage, and very difficult to survive fighting against, and turn it into pudding, chance or no chance. That's ridiculous. This is a video game, intentionally designed for a reason. Not a lottery. You know how in MMOs you get those .001% ultra-rare loot drops from bosses and stuff? That's what this is. If you can touch a ridiculously powerful, scary, tough dragon down to 1HP, that's the game just going "Yayyy! Look what you won! You won an easy fight! Congratulations! ^_^" That power makes no sense. Why can't you make a fireball that has a chance of covering the entire screen and dealing 8,000 damage? You can't. You can do like 100 damage with a fireball, or as much damage as an enemy has hitpoints, -1, with another spell. Or, with Finger of Death, you just scratch off that 1. You're no more skillfully making the spell actually work than you are making that ultra-rare loot drop when you beef up all your loot-drop-percentages in an MMO, then fight the boss. You're just investing in better luck, then getting slightly less lucky than you would have when you DO get lucky. I really don't know how else to say it. I get that they're in games, and I get that they're fun. But they objectively make no sense. What does it say about the design of these things when, in designing the rules, you're forced to figure out some way to make sure it almost never works, just to justify even putting it in the game at all? Show me a tactical/objective role that's being filled by these abilities, that the game would severely lack without them. And show me a game that simply has all the magical effects scale. Like... The foe's too strong for that insta-death spell to kill, but it didn't miss or get fully resisted, so it hits, but it takes it a minute to kill that thing. If you can survive that long, go you. You STILL have to actually fight it for that length of time. Or, you have to hit it multiple times with that spell. Or, it merely does 10% of the thing's health or something (whatever percentage would still result in a relatively large amount of damage, because the bosses HP would be higher than "regular"/weaker foes' HP, in proportion with its resistances/defenses that prevent the spell from killing it, etc." But, in this system, you wouldn't need miniscule chances of success on the spell, because its effect isn't infinitely powerful. Thus, they'd actually be USEFUL in more situations, without being stupid. Play a game like that, then tell me you'd rather go back to the other system, where it was pretty much a dumb idea to even try to use any of those really potent/cool-functioning spells against a big boss, but you could try it anyway and pretty much just bypass the fight if you were lucky. And, if you weren't lucky, you just completely wasted your time. It's like the design is saying "we want you to be ABLE to make this an easy fight, but we want to discourage trying it as hard as we possibly can." The ONLY good thing that comes out of that is the occasional "Yay, hehe, I won that fight really easily. That was spiffy." Nope. The argument is, some even-non-idiot can cast harm and have it work, not have to reload, and kill the dragon the following turn. Even if they didn't have any elaborate, scheming plan to make the dragon easy. They simply were offered the ability to take Harm, and invest in it, and they did. And then, luck happened. You might as well just put a button at the entrance to the cave, that, when pressed, MIGHT kill the dragon (or, in this case, reduce it to 1HP), and have it take 1-turn to press. That would be ridiculous, right? But, it's okay as long as it's an optional ability, for some reason. EDIT: I just realized something; this is exactly what's being brought up in an issue with the "why should you get the same amount of XP for sneaking to do something or talking to do something instead of fighting to do something?" question. Why should you get dragon-killing XP for a spell and a slap, when you otherwise have to actually battle the whole dragon and utilize a bunch of combat expertise and such to slay it for the exact same amount of XP?

*Pats you on back*... It happens.

Or a 7-node spaceship like in Phantasy Star III. 8P I now demand a companion who turns into a multi-person jet ski. u_u

Maybe in the PoE universe, "boreal" means "from the south." *shrug*

I shall pass it on, . Also, you should definitely at least lurk around tomorrow, as I'm fairly certain there'll be a new update. 8P Welcome, to both you AND Iraya! ^_^

They haven't outsourced the entire game. Just little subsets of "grunt work," to put it simply. It wouldn't be cheaper for them to have their whole experienced team of developers just sit around and do nothing, and have some other group do everything. Don't ask me for the specifics. Ask Obsidian. I don't know who they've outsourced to, but I'm betting it wasn't just some people out on the street somewhere, so, clearly there's some feasible setup for a group of people to accept smaller workloads like that as a subset of a larger project. Maybe (just as an example) to do it themselves, they'd have to buy more computers/workstations/software licences, so they opted to cut out the costs of those things by outsourcing the tasks to another group who already had these things, and therefore are only charging for the labor? *shrug*. I couldn't tell you. But, I'm also not the one assuming that it's definitively some awesome, efficient, good-idea set up. I'm simply pointing out that it could be, and that, I'd rather find out and know, than assume and make even further decisions based on that assumption (such as whether or not I'm for or against additional stretch goals). But that's just me. I mean, we could just as easily say assume "Well, they're wanting to add new stretch goals, so they clearly ran out of money and need the funds from these stretch goals to finish the game, and they've simply labeled the last few environments/companions they had already planned on making as 'extra' stuff, just to justify the request for additional funds, u_u." We know that to be true just as much as we know that they only outsourced some unspecific amount of their workload to fully competent people simply because they were incapable of getting that workload done any other way (and that it was an inferior choice to doing it themselves, all things considered) to be true. Which is to say they're both just guesses, really. I don't really have anything else to say on the matter. I've pointed out that your assumption isn't necessarily right. You can consider that, or ignore it. It's really fine either way. I just thought it might be something you felt was worth consideration. That's all. I'm not trying to win anything here. (And, for the record, that doesn't mean that you are. It was simply a clarification regarding my intentions here, with other people's intentions being completely separate and unaffected.)

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly how it works, technically, but I think "Expert Mode" is simply a group of preferences, set on. But then, many (if not all) of those will be accessible to toggle individually. Josh talked about how they want us to be able to customize individual things, especially things like "display damage numbers on-screen" and how verbose to have journal entries, etc. So... hidden experience seemed to fit in amongst that stuff, as something you could toggle without actually having to turn on all of Expert Mode just to get it. But, it could also be within the Expert Mode preferences group. 8P

I'm simply asking a question, which you seem to be perceiving as having some sort of a defensive tone. I merely don't see your reasoning, and was asking about it, rather than assuming you had none. You seem to be assuming that outsourcing some work, rather than doing it yourself, can only be a sign of some degree of desperation or failure (the key words being "some degree" here). Thus, I'm just pointing out other possibilities that you may not have considered, is all. There's nothing for me to even get defensive about. We're just carrying on a discussion about what Obsidian's use of outsourcing could mean. Just because I point things out doesn't mean they're automatically accompanied by accusations that you've specifically declared the direct opposite of those ideas/points. No worries. Okay, I'm quoting it this time, if that helps. And in direct response, I'll just point out that, while true, this does not change the simple fact that outsourcing work isn't just some last resort/an option to go with only when things aren't going according to plan. It can very much be a perfectly effective intentional part of a plan. So, I just don't see a reason to react to the fact that they've outsourced some environment art and such with "Obviously something has gone awry and/or outsourcing was their only option." That's all.

Well, considering the alternative is "hire some extra artists and stuff JUST to do a certain amount of work, then fire them," I'd say it's probably a pretty efficient decision. I can make cupcakes in my kitchen, but if I decided I was going to make 500 cupcakes for a party a week from now, I'd probably just hire a caterer. Especially if I already had the money to afford the caterer because I got like 400% funding via a Kickstarter project to fund the party's catering.

I think I get you, here. But, I fear that's a grazing hit on my point. Ehh, how to put it simply... All loopholes (particularly these specific allowances, in RPGs) are skillful combinations of what the game provides, but not all skillful combinations of what the game provides are loopholes. Does that make sense? I'm ALL for making a "this is intentionally designed to be a big, difficult fight" dragon fight (just sticking to a dragon as an example) easier due to cleverness and "skill," but there's no reason it needs to become simple. If there was a spell that just definitely killed stuff, no matter what, that would be stupid, right? So, why is "I can totally kill a dragon in one hit, but only if I'm lucky" perfectly fine? Or, to put it another way, if that's mechanically sound, then why don't we just let critical hits have a tiny chance of instantly killing things? Why is it okay to let chance override challenge?

^ Under what circumstances would outsourcing simply be an intelligent use of available resources, rather than something they're "having" to do because of some inadequacy? In other words, if they just hired more people, would that be fine, in lieu of outsourcing to people who Obsidian has intelligently determined is fully capable of meeting their needs with specified bits of work? I understand simply not wishing for any further extension to the game's development time, but this sentiment of "they're obviously struggling just to keep up with stuff as it is, and would, for some reason, fall behind even more if they used a new, set amount of funds from a stretch goal to add in a couple of things" is strange to me. It seems like simply a subjective judgement of their aptitude as a development studio, rather than any kind of objective assessment of actual factors.

^ In all fairness, if you don't even know what kind of improvements we're talking about with each level in this particular game's design, how can you really judge the number of levels, objectively? Or, to put it as simply as possible, how do you know that, when you actually sit down and play the game, and reach level 12 with your party, you won't be perfectly content with the amount of progress/power you've achieved?

@Adhin: Yeah, I didn't mean that INT did nothing to support a Wizard's "power," in general. But, I just think damage, as a factor, often gets neglected in RPGs. For example, I personally think it would be awesome to be able to build a Lvl 1 Wizard who deals more damage but has longer cast times (in D&D terms, 2 rounds for 1-round spells), OR a Wizard who deals less damage but casts faster. Not to mention, one who has more spells versus fewer spells as a whole separate factor. The other side note I need to make is that "damage dealt" is often only taken in a single context, rather than looked at as a solitary factor. Things so often get boiled down to "DPS, man! DPS!" But, the distinction between effective DPS and hypothetical DPS is hardly ever made. Thus, instead of sheer "high-DPS" builds often being very ineffective in certain circumstances, the game doesn't really create much of a difference. Which is one reason I like that Obsidian is looking at this project's combat as "tactical combat," rather than just "stats versus stats, abilities versus abilities" etc. 24/7, as both groups just charge each other. So, yeah. I just wanted to comment on that. When I talk about how I would've liked to have seen, specifically, "spell damage" as a factor from some stat in D&D, I literally just mean the damage value of individual spells, and not the automatic applicability of being able to hit things with them on a regular enough basis to generate better effective DPS. Honestly, I think if that effective DPS value doesn't vary pretty greatly from scenario to scenario, the game's suffering from a bit of oversimplicity. As, even fulfilling the same role the whole game through, you shouldn't be able to just "do the same thing" for the entire game, purely because your offensive capabilities negate the need for active efforts. Oftentimes, when an RPG (as of late... an "RPG") says "you must use skill and cleverness to be most effective," all they mean is that you'll need to use abilities in the right order, etc. It's not really tactics, it's just knowledge. "Ohhh, If I use this guy's AoE that lowers their armor, then I use THIS guy's AoE that holds them all in place (root or something), then THIS character's AoE Sword Rain spell, they'll all be stuck there, AND take the most damage, and they'll die!" Well, the passive specs of the abilities just did all the work for you. You didn't maneuver the enemies into a cluster, or cleverly use a variety of tools in order to accomplish a goal. You accomplished a goal that's already accomplished by the sheer design of the abilities. It's not as if they expect you to use an armor-reducing AoE AFTER you do all your heavy damage. Again... oversimplicity. Anywho, I digress. Sorry. Mainly, I just wanted to clarify the "damage" thing. That I wasn't saying "I'd like to be able to build a Wizard who just ambiguously 'does more damage'."

For what it's worth, Expert Mode is essentially a set of various option values that can be toggled on and off. In other words, apparently, we'll be able to access all or most of those values individually and toggle them as we see fit. I only say that because I wasn't sure if the suggestion you read was mine for the Hidden Experience thing to be an Expert-Mode-type option. I just meant, that style of option, is all. (Basically, this was just in case you didn't know we'd have a lot of individual toggle flexibility on options.)

What if... the stronghold itself has a soul... o_o No no, I jest. (Actually... that could -- key word "could" -- be interesting...)

Must... resist... immense... irony! *struggle struggle* Wait, so... there's no doubt that it simply won't work, but at the same time: ??? I'm confused. 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. So you die. And then the apocalypse occurs and the world ends... Oh wait, no, you continue, just like you'd do if you died while using any other strategy in any other encounter in the whole game, and you try again, with completely new dice rolls this time. And it eventually works. The 1st time, or the 100th time. You don't decide which time it works. The dice do. Welcome to luck-based challenge elimination. Wait... I could've sworn I just saw that same line in this thread somewhere recently... *ponder*

I made my usage of the word "skill" quite clear, and you're arguing against a different usage. Not very helpful. Obviously I never claimed that the luck-based roll wasn't derived from/affected by a numerical value, labeled within the game system as a "skill." I simply pointed out the fact that, skill or no skill, the end result -- an attack roll -- is a roll of chance, as affected by various other values. The very core of the system is variable chance. If you'd like to deny that, then I have no idea what else ot even say to you. If you wouldn't like to deny that, then maybe stop wasting words on something we don't even disagree on. And that's great. But, it simply doesn't need these loopholes. "Loopholes" are, by definition, unintended allowances by a given set of rules and/or restrictions. Sure, they can be enjoyable. I'm just being objective here. It's fun to elaborately slay a dragon in a couple of hits, but if it's just from a bunch of real-world rule-shaping technicalities, it's not really serving much more of a purpose than a cheat code. There's nothing wrong with using cheat codes to, say, become invincible. But, there's a reason they require a code to be put in, instead of just being an inherent aspect of the game. Not because it's bad to be invincible, or to enjoy it, but because it contradicts the deliberate framework of challenge. You've got easy fights, more difficult fights, all the way up to "this is relatively one of the toughest fights in the game" fights, in a game like this. There's absolutely no logical reason for it to allow you to turn that into one of the easiest fights in the game if you just happen to do it right. It's not that it can't do it. Just that it has no need to. Anyway, you believe what you believe, so, *shrug*... it doesn't really matter. I'm just explaining my stance on it. I think you're just not actually considering my actual perspective before believing what you do, (even if you'd still ultimately prefer it the way you do now). But, that's just me.

Really? So, you can click on a target more skillfully than I can, and cause the results to be a hit more often than I can, using the same mouse and the same character? Who the hell's splitting hairs? You're the one who keeps trying to arbitrarily correct things. There's not even a technicality here. Attack rolls are dice rolls, and dice rolls are luck. The fact that you have a weapon "skill" in the game that affects your luck-based dice roll doesn't somehow make the dice roll not-luck-based. So, in Iron Man mode, it wouldn't be a good choice at all. Or if you're just personally challenging yourself to never fail the fight before succeeding. I get that. It's still illogical. How roundabout of a method is it to simply reduce the chances of something happening to a really tiny percent, thus still allowing it to occur, if you want to make something not viable? Because, like I said, it's not really no longer viable. It's probably not viable. As long as it bypasses those hurdles (which COULD happen, through no act of skill, but rather, pure luck), it's TOTALLY viable. Hell, so long as you had a Cleric with the spell, you'd be remiss not to try it at least ONCE during the fight. One possibly wasted spell slot, versus the chance to end the fight in 2 turns? That's the problem with letting chance run wild. It serves a great purpose, and is useful in many ways, but "I want this to be difficult, and thus I'll just split it between really difficult and extremely easy based on chance" isn't a very sound idea, really. You wouldn't have an ability that has a .1% chance of you simply beating the game, right? Because you have absolutely no intention for a single ability use to produce such results, regardless of the slimness of the chance. Which is why we just have chancical things like critical hits. If you get a critical hit, then you make a little more progress than you would've on a regular hit. You don't just reach a certain milestone, no matter what. That's what people don't seem to get. You can miss with an attack, instead of hit, so that there's a dynamic to which you must react, instead of just guaranteedly producing a desired result every single time you choose to, and just doing the math on how to efficiently produce enough damage to kill something in the fewest turns. Spell saves and chance-based misses/fails on attacks are there to represent defense, not to serve as something against which to balance the effect of the ability/attack in the first place. "Nothing" is literally the least amount of effect something can have. You can't justify somehow trying to come up with a possible effect that somehow counter-balances with "nothing," or you'd just end up with infinity. It's the whole reason we establish the system in the first place. There's hitpoints, and there's damage. Then there's "Haha, I don't even care about hitpoints or damage, because I just circumvent the entire point of that system by producing some absolute effect that's only limited by the amount of HP I have to remove."