Lephys

^ Yeah, sorry. I wasn't meaning to suggest you didn't want any character interaction at all. I just wanted to address that particular situation, as it occurred to me after reading what you'd said.

This isn't something I'm advocating heavily from the get-go, because it would be iffy at best (without testing), but it immediately seems like it at least has the potential to work (or something similar): What if you had some kind of "You seem to have something on your mind" or "Do you have a problem with someone?" option, pretty much always available to you, when talking to companions? Before you freak out, this wouldn't actually let you know that there WAS a problem. So, if you simply think "well, I'll just click that every time I talk to them, to see if anything's the matter," they would actually just get progressively more annoyed with you, to the point of not even wanting to talk about a problem when there WAS one. In less-specific terms... what if it was mostly up to you to discover THEN address (if you so choose AND external factors allow) problems/conflicts between companions? You know, instead of you always being this gravity well, as Pipyui said, with 2 companions going all "Oh, hey there! Yeah, we just HAPPENED to walk over here to you to have this big argument about something, and to ask you who's your favorite. No pressure, u_u".

I believe he was merely speaking within the context of combat, as that seemed to be the focus of the matter, and several examples. In other words, giving combat magic to Warriors and combat melee to Wizards isn't necessary, as they are both merely variants of combat abilities. That being said, I'm not seeing a lot of potential reasons to give Warriors non-combat magic, either, for what it's worth. I mean, giving Warriors the ability to magically break down doors and Wizards the ability to physically break down doors is kind of unnecessary, as they can both already do useful things to doors with their ways.

"Man, dragging everything around is pretty tough. I bet there's a better way to move things more easily. Like... a round thing that could roll." "Umm, could you point me to an example of an already-existing round thing that can roll? 'Cause, if you can't, then that's obviously a terrible idea."

... Now I'm lost. Did you think I was arguing with you about whether or not we should call it a dungeon concept or not, or was trying to suggest it ISN'T painted over? The original update quite literally labels the image as "A Vertical Slice dungeon concept by Polina," which is why I quoted that. As you seemed to be getting some "I totally mean more by this than I actually mean" vibes from my use of "dungeon concept," I merely pointed out that I'm only referring to the image in the update with the label provided to us by Obsidian, themselves. For what it's worth, though, I don't think "ISN'T A DIGITAL RENDER THAT'S THEN BEEN PAINTED OVER BY A CONCEPT ARTIST TO MAKE A NEW IMAGE" is located anywhere within the definition of "concept." So, again... *is baffled* o_o

Well, then I'm sad to discover that I'm apparently the only one who doesn't disagree with it, haha. *shrug* It was purely my opinion. Nothing more. It does make me think that maybe I missed something, though, or that I'm remembering it incorrectly. Mayhaps I need to re-evaluate. Try as I might, I'm really failing to see, here, how a relationship between any NPC and your main Player Character is ANY different simply for having personal/romantic interest as a basis. I mean, are you suggesting that it would be fine for a character to potentially be influenced by your interactions to the point of deciding that your life is more important than theirs, and sacrificing themselves at some desperate point in the story to prevent you from dying, as long as it has nothing whatsoever to do with any amount of personal affection? It just seems to me that they could spend just as much time writing oodles of stuff that amounts to the same so-called "problems" without actually having any romance or personal affection in the story, whatsoever. Hell, what about family "love" relationships? Not the same thing, but OODLES of pure personal affection. The only difference is pretty much the potential for sex (which you don't even HAVE to spend resources to portray/represent in the actual gameplay/"footage," itself, really). Also, this thread is about to die. 8(

It's really just a broader idea of change, if you think about it. Before, he wasn't coping with it as well, and now he is, thanks to you. I like to think that people's essences are like a symphony, with several different sections playing different pieces in parallel. You usually don't ever actually add or subtract an entire section from the symphony. Rather, you hold a microphone closer to one section or move one farther away from another. You just change a factor that that person's already dealing with. You may not consider doughnuts worth their price, for example. So, maybe, alone, you'll NEVER procure any doughnuts. However, if I come up to you, and say "Hey, here's some free doughnuts," you might accept them. Why? Because the factors are different. You were weighing the price of doughnuts and effort involved in getting them against your personal value for having doughnuts, and the value did not win out, so you decided towards no-doughnuts. But, now that I've altered the factors, "simply reach out and take some doughnuts" doesn't seem like too much trouble anymore, and you'll take them. Obviously, if another factor were introduced (because, say, you're a different person), you might be allergic to doughnuts, or simply hate them. At that point, my elimination of the cost of getting doughnuts will have little-to-no effect. However, in any of the situations, you're still the one making the decision based on your own throught processes. I'm not changing your like or dislike of doughnuts, or changing the way in which you CONSIDER the choice. I'm simply providing you with external factors/alterations you didn't previously have (such as a way to get free doughnuts, instantly). That's the other thing that's lacking in a lot of games. Complexity of psyche. And I know it's a lot of work to artificially emulate with some text and models and animations, but it's not impossible. But, people should almost ALWAYS have some amount of consideration for multiple aspects of a choice. Even with people who are cult-level brainwashed to think a certain way with every fiber of their being should have SOMETHING that will cause them to question their own decisions and actions and, at the very least, reconsider things. You know, "I think this guy's an invulnerable god, but he just tripped and skinned his knee on the cave floor, and I just saw him bleed." That sort of thing. We're not robots, and no matter how stubborn we can be, we don't actually stop evaluating sensory input at any point. We just heavily ignore it sometimes, because of extreme Mental Inertia. 8P Exactly, 8D. I would just like to add that, for all not-coincidentally-extremely-naive people, there should be that same sort of "waryness" (for lack of a better word) to a decision either way (that you're some super honest person, or that you're a huge liar). We defaultly know that we can't necessarily trust people until we see evidence otherwise, but we also know that people are potentially capable of being trusted. In a way, I'd kind of like to see most of the companions sort of "test" you in little ways. Sort of a probationary period to go from "okay, obviously the risk of this person screwing me over at the moment is not as big of a worry as the risk of us all dying if I don't travel with someone out of here right now" to "Hey, I kinda feel comfortable with this person, and I believe I understand some of their motivations and perspectives on things."

^ If someone says "You don't enjoy stalking people and collecting their personal belongings?," you could respond, "Nope... I'm not a fahnn."

I apologize. I was thrown by your phrasing is all. That, and I couldn't pass up such a humorous scenario. Here's the way I see it: How far off is it, really, from saying "Welp, if we're gonna die tomorrow, or the world's gonna end, then we'll try to stop it. But, tonight, I'm going to order the most expensive thing on the menu, since we have to eat dinner and sleep before tomorrow's battle anyway!"? Except there's a person involved, rather than some inanimate food. But, yeah. Confronting that kind of thing makes you think about what you can't do after it's too late, is all. Doesn't mean it's preposterous for people to not have sex just because there's world craziness going on. But, it's not entirely insane for them TO do that, either, and it's not exactly an arbitrary or abrupt decision when you've been through so much alongside someone.

Haha. I can just see that now: "Hey, man, you're like... kind of a leafy, animal-y individual. You must really like Frendalus, the goddess of nature! 8D" "No... nature SUCKS! *flips a table* I actually burn trees in my spare time, for sport, and I love all things synthetic! MUAHAHAHAHA!" ^_^

A nice set of points, I think. One thought I had is that the typical gifts system we see in a lot of RPGs would probably work a lot better as mainly a set of actions/choices than one of simply, physical goods. In fact, I think the only time gift-giving hasn't been a little silly and has seemed to fit well is when it is an extremely personal gift that you had to go out of your way to obtain, and/or that you're having to sacrifice the worth of (to yourself) by giving it away rather than keeping it. So, really, the only reason the physical thing was important at all was because of the gesture of giving THAT to THAT person, under THOSE circumstances. I think that type of thing should really always be something to weigh out. I mean, if there's no benefit to NOT-giving someone something, then why NOT boost your party's approval of yourself for (essentially) free? Maybe you, the player, personally like the Rogue in the party, and you decide that, against your normal judgement of it being "wrong," you're going to actually pilfer some valuables from a stash that TECHNICALLY belongs to someone, but you're recovering from bandits, anyway, so there's "no telling" what was already missing (sold/traded by the bandits before you got there) and what wasn't. So, even though that maybe stretches your normal moral code on things, and you now run the risk of being caught in a lie, you're placing the interests of the Rogue in front of your own. That's 17 times better than any "Hey dude, here's a golden statue," any day. Having said that, I think your influence over the other characters should really stem more from actions than from words, in general. I think a lot of games (not necessarily without reason; limited resources, technology, etc.) tend to lean a little too far towards sort of simplifying choices to mere words. You know? "Oh, I totally care about you!". I'd rather see someone say "Hmm... if you say so," and now keep a closer eye on whether or not I prove that I actually consider their well-being, than "Really? GREAT! I now hold it as absolute truth that you care about me, because you didn't say you didn't care about me! 8D!" Hell, I'd be interested in seeing the same thing even if you say "Pssh... I'm just here to get the job done. If you weren't a useful tool in accomplishing that task, I wouldn't even be talking to you right now." You know... a wary eye, and maybe on down the line, it turns out you do actually place personal value on that companion. In a word? Skepticism. Er... in a couple of words: reasonable skepticism. Or... I'm gonna call it Influence Inertia. If someone doesn't trust you, and you try to suddenly push them into the Trust corner, they should resist at first. It should take more effort to get them going than it does to keep them going once they're going. Then, it should be even harder to stop abruptly and pull them back away from the corner, since they're still moving forward. You hear that, Obsidian? Influence Inertia. You can totally use that for free. I won't even demand royalties.

That is an excellent example. Of course, it's mildly tricky in this discussion, because the fact that it literally mimicked a fireball is not really an important detail. But, yes, the broader idea is the point. The fact that Wizards/Mages don't get exclusive rights to igniting things. I would say that, ideally, the two things wouldn't function identically. But, I mean... you're going to run into things that do. Like... a telekinetic shove, and a physical Warrior's kick. Far be it from me to exclude something as simple as a telekinetic shove simply because it almost mimics another class's kick. So, yeah, I think a lot of this back-and-forth between the "I don't know that it really needs to be balanced" and "BALANCE IS NECESSARY! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!" groups is simply misunderstanding. Or rather... ambiguity? Ambiguous understanding? Heh. To put it as simply as possible, I don't want to go through a game and run into 173 instances of NEEDING to be able to set an area on fire, and having the game say "Lolz! Since you don't have a Mage, simply because you don't prefer Mages, I'm actually denying you the very ability to set an area ablaze, even though fire, itself, isn't even magical! 8D!" Now, maybe the Mage is still the best at setting areas on fire, because he has so much more control over the fire, and so much more ease with which he tosses it about. But, that's why I specify "utility." If one class can relocate enemies to any extent, then any other class should be able to do the same. It's only practical. And you shouldn't base strengths and weaknesses on extremely general aspects of the game, like damage. A relative damage difference is one thing. But, the difference in a class's ability to deal out damage should really be in HOW they deal damage, because an overall lack of damage output is always bad, and an overall abundance of damage output is always good. Low damage is not a situational detriment, because you're never going to say "Oh, hey, turns out THESE enemies are actually more susceptible to LOW damage than they are to HIGH damage! 8D" And, again, combat is an integral part of progression. So, yes, the problem with super general class roles based on things like damage output is NOT that "Oh no, that Warrior can deal more damage with his sword than I can with MY sword!", but rather in how the damage output capability of a given class relates to necessity of adequate damage output to facilitate combat progress. That overlaps with oodles of other things, like encounter balance, in general. If an easy encounter becomes difficult simply because you have certain characters of certain classes (as opposed to another party make-up), then any generally tough encounters are suddenly impossible. If you're already on Easy, then you can no longer account for such a shift, except to go back and pick a different party makeup, which solves the problem of being at a huge combat disadvantage due to raw class power, but produces the problem of the infeasibility of not choosing a specific set of classes. It's not a comparison that can simply be made in one encounter example (as it would have to manifest in enough combat examples, throughout a playthrough, to reach the point of unreasonableness), so it's hard to simply describe here in a few words. But, the balance that is necessary is quite broad; it encompassess a LOT of factors. Which is why you don't need to think inside such a small box when it comes to it, like with a Warrior needing something that resembles a fireball. An example is a Rogue's general ability to evade and avoid. What does this produce? Damage mitigation. You can't take damage if you're not getting hit. So, while a Barbarian might storm across the battlefield to his chosen target and shrug off a few arrows and blade nicks along the way because of his extreme meatiness, a Rogue will get to his target in a different manner. Of course, there are still differences. The Barbarian can strike back at other things along the way, but a stealthy Rogue must avoid interaction with the battle until reaching his intended target, lest he give himself away. See, they can both get to a given target without dying. Maybe a Wizard can eventually teleport but this costs him spell "ammo," and most likely defenseless cast duration, etc. So, they all accomplish the same fundamental goal (repositioning themselves to take on a given foe in the midst of battle), but they all have to consider not only different factors, but also the same factors in different ways. And they are not made identical. Neither the Barbarian nor the Rogue instantly travels from one point to another... Neither the Barbarian nor the Wizard adeptly avoid notice... Neither the Rogue nor the Wizard shrug off attacks and/or hurt people along their journey to their desired spot. It's kind of like a puzzle, really. Class-balancing. "How can a hammer be effective here without being pliers?" That sort of thing.

Actually it's an in-engine render with a paint-over. That mechanical/magical thing in the room was actually painted in I'm just quoting the update, here. I'm not gonna be the one to argue with the dev team over whether or not what they're calling a concept is a concept, 8P

@Stun: Your reincarnation as a centaur is AWESOME! For what it's worth. Regarding your argument against removing death from the equation... Death is not the problem. Death is just a destination. The journey is what I'm worried about. I don't care if Death is where we're going, but I don't want to get teleported there. That's what you seem to be misunderstanding, as you keep suggesting we want to remove the very threat of death from combat. Like I don't want HP to be able to reach zero, or I don't want stuff to be able to deal damage. On the contrary. I just want an equation that doesn't always equal 0 HP, and I want damage for which the value actually matters. I don't want failure in combat to be reduced so a dice roll and a resistance value. I want to be able to react to the effects of something and possibly change them, then still be able to die. I don't want: Step 1 - Ability Use Step 2 - ... Step 3 - Profit! (death)

Good stuff, 8D! Thanks for sharing it!

Uhh,I'm aware of this. I was being sarcastic. <.< Si. I believe Micamo was pointing out, via sarcasm, that it's silly to conclude that if you don't like Bioware games, then anything that can be found in a Bioware game must be something you hate, rather than actually pinpointing what it is you don't like about them, specifically. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at with "fight-or-flight situation" there, but I highly doubt BruceVC is referring to something along the lines of the following: "Man, walking down this path sure is nice. You're pretty cool." "Yeah, you too. Yay, paths..." *Wild Tiger appears* "OMG! A TIGER! QUICK! SEX!!! NOW!!!" "Wait... shouldn't we probably fle-" "NO! SEX! IT'LL HELP ME COPE WITH THE APPEARANCE OF THIS VORACIOUS TIGER!"

^ This. It IS a "dungeon" concept, and not simply the nearest town square. I wouldn't go assuming that elements of that concept are rampant and/or commonplace throughout the entire game world. Imagine if you did it with something else in the concept, other than magi-nology: "Oh man, I certainly hope the world isn't filled with wall crypts/tombs..." Also, I wouldn't really call the "magic as technology/electricity" thing a "trope," really. Magic is a source of energy, and people naturally utilize energy sources to complete tasks. That would be a bit like saying "Man, I'm not so sure about this whole metal-and-other-materials-as-a-means-of-cutting-people-and-things trope..." There's a difference between something happening a lot, and something being a trope (at least with a negative/lack-of-creativity connotation). Nothing being familiar is just as bad as everything being familiar.

This mockup is not far from where we are going with our revisions. So you guys are really... raising the bar for the UI? (You see, because the hotbar is actually above the portrait frame, rather than within it. 8D) Seriously, though, that's a good direction to be going. I actually really like Morgulon's, though, AND Karkarov's. I wonder if it would be horrendously infeasible to have some simple UI options along the lines of "Minimal" and "Fancy" or something. Fancy being more like Morgulon's mockup. I mean, obviously 17 versions would probably be out of the question, but... I dunno, I mean, it's pretty much an aesthetic choice at that point. Namely, placing more important on aesthetics and less importance on the size of the game's viewable area (not covered by UI). But, I think maybe a handful of options along that line (probably 3, tops) could be quite nice, albeit not exactly integral.

While that's a valid way to handle it, I still worry that you'd get to some guy who is a 6 out of 10 on Bluff difficulty, and Rick the Rogue can single-handedly Bluff his way past a 10, but your main character can't even bluff past a 1 (let's just assume a 2-person party for example's sake), so now the game goes "Oh, well, in that case, you get a 5, so you fail to successfully Bluff this guy, whom Rick the Rogue could've single-handedly handled on his own." That would leave me wondering things like, "Wait, was Rick the Rogue magically WORSE at Bluffery because I was in proximity? Did I emit a truth aura? Was my character required to participate in the Bluff, and that's what screwed it up?" Etc. Although, heh, having said that... Now that I think about it, if the main character HAD to be present, I suppose his inability to keep a straight face or, for lack of a better phrase, "play it cool" during the Bluff (even though he's not participating in it, with his mouthial sounds) would negatively impact the effects of the Bluff, regardless of Rick the Rogue's exquisite Bluffery prowess. So, there's that alongside my concern. Hmmm... Okay, different example, to check: Strength check, against a door. If your 20-STR Warrior tried to take down the door, and your 5-STR Wizard main character took his check down to... crap, I used uneven math... 12.5? And he failed to take the door down, that wouldn't make much sense. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't EVER get some use out of taking the mean (as per Bluff example, above). So, yeah... still a pretty valid method to consider, I'd say. I think we can at least agree that it would seem some form of interaction between the skill/stat ratings of different characters (even if indirect) should probably exist when the party's doing things. I still believe that having at least some instances of checks that can only be successfully overcome by multiple skill/stat scores in tandem would be interesting. Sticking to common examples, maybe there's a big door that your Warrior can't break down, even with his 20 STR. But, alas! Your main character is ALSO a burly Warrior! (I know the class is kind of arbitrary...). Okay, so, your main character is a whatever... point is, he ALSO has high STR (we'll just go with 20). Well, in-so-far as the math behind the door breaking down is concerned, you need a total of 36 STR. So, with the two of you, you manage to break it. But, if your main character had only had 10 STR, you couldn't have done it. Basically, at least in THOSE instances (which don't have to be all instances of skill/stat checks in the game, obviously), it handles the "Wait, why is my skill/stat value the only one that matters?" dilemma, regardless of whether or not you're asking it for your main character, or another party member. Or, to put it another way, allowing the player to choose which member of the party gets to make a check handles the "Only the main character's skills/stats matter" problem, but the problem of only one person's skills/stats mattering at any given time is still an issue. Because, why COULDN'T multiple people attempt the same thing in conjunction, when appropriate? (Clearly, 3 people cannot pool their Archery accuracy to make a single shot, cooperatively) Sorry, I know that was long-winded of me. (What else is new? )

Interestingly, simply "decompressing" the insta-death effect can make for even still-killy abilities that are much richer in nature. Just changing simple factors, so that it's not some all-in-one solitary dice roll makes all the difference in the world. Imagine if some spell had to strike you three times to kill you. And/or maybe the death spell is a slow-moving projectile that's dodgeable, or even able to be blocked by obstacles or shields (after all, you can't kill a shield). And/or maybe the spell must be channeled for 10 consecutive seconds to actually work. I think the most important facet of this is that no ability (much less end-all-be-all insta-slay abilities) should ever hinge on too few factors. That's why a physical strike that happens to deal enough damage to kill you is not problematic. - The enemy had to reach you to strike you - The enemy had to not-miss. - The enemy's damage output had to be of a certain value (meaning he couldn't be suffering too many penalties at the time). - Your character's health had to be lower than the potential damage of the strike. - Your character's armor had to be low enough (OR of the correct type) to fail to mitigate the damage coming from the enemy. - Your character had to fail to block/dodge. That's not even all of them. All the factors you have some modicum of control over, at least. So, it's not really bad that an effect be insta-death. It's bad that it rely on so few factors (whether or not the ability was used, and whether or not you resisted; nothing more).

It kind of is, though, really. It's a Feasibility Tournament between various allegedly-feasible options (in this case, classes) for a given player to get through the game. It's the same reason you don't go to a car rental shop and have the salesperson tell you "Well, there's this one, which is fully functional to transport you places. This one, however, is missing a wheel and only turns left, but you can totally rent it for the same price, 8D!" There's nothing wrong with one vehicle having 500 horsepower and only getting 10mpg, and one having only 70 horsepower and getting 50mpg. That affects HOW you go through the game, but neither is detrimental to your getting through the game. Rolling with the AOE example, it's not so much that if a Wizard has a radius-targeted spell, a Warrior must ALSO have a radius-targeted spell. It's that, if you're going to be facing entire groups of enemies throughout the entire game (the figurative road), you can't say "all 11 of these classes are yours to choose from, and will all get you through the game! (down the road to your destination)" when one of them is incapable of handling entire groups of enemies in some fashion (i.e. figuratively missing a wheel and/or has no fuel tank, etc.). Maybe you can't take on AS MANY as the Wizard as you can with the Warrior, all at once. Maybe you actually take on one-at-a-time, but you're much better at controlling several individual enemies in rapid succession. Maybe you can control obstacles. Maybe it requires a lot more effort/intricacy to tackle multiple enemies, but the point is that you're actually capable as opposed to being incapable. It's a very broad balance. It's not "wait, if you to make fire, I should get to make fire!" It's not about being able to do the same things. It's about being able to handle the same situations, even if in drastically different manners. In a game in which combat is an integral part of narrative progression throughout the entire game, it's hardly prudent to tell one player who happens to pick a certain class "Your class sucks at combat. But don't worry... you can talk really well, which doesn't help you in combat. Basically, if you make a party of all that class, then you're going to find out 1/3 of the way through the game that, when you're playing on Easy, you're essentially playing on Insane." It's kinda like saying "You can totally pick whatever class you want and the game won't be a living hell, as long as you restrict your class choice." And, interestingly enough, I'm glad you brought up a class making the game a cakewalk, because balance isn't about simply making sure no class has a tough time of the whole game. Really, no class should make the game significantly easier, either. Ideally (in theory), the only thing that should actually affect the overall difficulty of an entire playthrough is your difficulty setting. Obviously, the fluctuations are gonna vary, but the mean should be relatively the same. They don't have to be balanced, but they should be. Chance wasn't incorporated into stat allocation so that it could take over. That's exactly why everyone-and-their-brother quite rapidly adopted the "roll 4, take 3" rule for stat rolling in DnD. Not to mention, what did you do if you rolled 6 3s? You re-rolled. Is it at ALL fun to play a character with 3 in every stat? Pretty much, no. All your player choices would be overruled by your character's complete lack of capability. Not to mention that, generally, after you'v rolled 6 stat values, you still get the choice of which values to assign to which stats. A good DM vies for a bit of balance in the characters' stats. A few low numbers, a few high numbers. Not all low or all high. You didn't re-roll until you got all 18s, though, because that's equally preposterous. Chance was introduced for variance, because variance is interesting and provides external factors for the player to deal with. For balance, in the whole thing, really. Because all choice excludes a lot of things people might not think to try but might enjoy, and all external factors leaves out choice. That's why we blend them.

Rolling with that example, you'd actually automatically have several advantages as a penniless peasant (assuming you're still capable enough to do the things "adventurers" do) rather than a noble-born. Anonymity, for one. Not to mention you don't have to worry about people coming after you for all that fancy gilded stuff you don't possess, nor worry about who among your 1,000-person entourage you can trust and who you can't, etc. The point being, there's almost ALWAYS a tradeoff that balances things, in one way or another. Just imagine multiple scales, and take the average of each side of all of them, as opposed to just one scale.

I'm not sure I'm quite meeting the totality of your question here, but I suppose the only difference, really, is that you're not likely to have the potential to own and operate every single civilized settlement in the game. So, the stronghold is still something crafted into the world as an opportunity for your characters to use as their own personal resource, in ways that only a keep/settlement/structure thingy can be used within a given world. So... yeah, I guess what you're guessing is pretty much true, except the player CAN be the top dog, or he can be any tier of dog. As opposed to having absolutely no opportunity for altering the altitude of his dogness.

I'm sorry that the way of things upsets you to the point of complete denial, but tactics thrive on factor-outcome variance, and insta-everything's-over abilities that hinge upon a single dice roll are quite literally on the opposite end of the spectrum from variance of any kind. 3 possibilities, even, are exponentially greater than a mere 2, especially when one of them is the absence of effect. I didn't make things so. I'm simply voicing observations. And if you'd like to ignore them, or decide I'm making things up, then that's totally your prerogative. Maybe less close-minded people actually garnered some value from this discussion. If not for your constant objection to everything I was saying, I would never have questioned everything I was saying, myself, to quite such an extent. So thanks for that at least. ^_^

I'm sorry... while you're at it, could you please tell me what I'd like for dinner tonight? Because I obviously can't be as sure as you can. 8P. Thanks a bunch. The point: You have typed it. (see gold text above). Regarding the stun, your character isn't "completely taken out of the combat encounter." He's still standing there, and will recover after a time. Therefore, protecting him is still a feasible tactical factor. Possibly even removing his stun. Worrying about him isn't pointless just because he got stunned. And, guess what? If he gets stunned with LOWER health, it's going to be more difficult to protect him so that he can return as a factor in your combat encounter. Maybe you could've been more careful with him, because he was lower on health. Etc. When a foe swings a weapon, it either hits or it doesn't, no matter what! *gasp*. But guess what? It produces a finite and variable effect, dependent upon oodles of other factors, even after the "no matter what" part. Guess what doesn't. That's right, insta-kill abilities, whose nature it is to nullify factors. (such as HP and armor values, etc.). Your resistance effectively becomes evasion, and everything else is rendered pointless. I forgot... in real combat, the only thing stopping us from ABSOLUTE disablement is a will/fort save and/or some magic resistance. Heh. You're right on one thing, at least: If those abilities are so instant and absolute, and so ignoring of all factors "save" one (see what I did there?), then they're just as bad as insta-killing abilities. So, at least we're in agreement on something. I fixed your statement, with red text. Also, "tough" combat? Haha... "Man, this fight is really complex and difficult..." "Why? What's wrong?" "Well, you see, if that guy decides to cast a single spell, I might just die." "Can't you stay far away from him, or hide behind something?" "Nope. It's all up to chance, and whether or not he feels like trying to kill me." "Wow, that IS tough!" "I know, right?! I've gotta figure out some kind of strategy that involves him deciding to simply NOT will me to death." You're right, Stun. Why on earth am I ignorantly advocating tactical control and reaction to a plethora of factors that determine the outcomes of things, when we could, instead, have all the depth and complexity of a tavern game of dice? o_O. What was I THINKing?! While we're at it, let's make combat even tougher by simply multiplying all enemies' health pools by 1,000, and giving them resistance to all damage types. That should make things more tactical and interesting. I'm loving this brainstorm we've got going on! Come now, how else can we make sure combat has depth? Let's keep 'em coming!