endolex

Oh, I wouldn't say that. Pre-buffing can be a LOT more meaningful than simply "making you stronger". And I'll give you a very common example. Invisibility. Invisibility is an IE game pre-buff. But it doesn't make you stronger. Instead, it simply opens up new tactical avenues. It allows for optimal positioning. It sets up your Thief. It places your Fighter in front of the Enemy's mage so that when the fight begins, that mage is instantly put into a melee situation. And no, PoE's pathetic excuse for Stealth is not a valid substitute, because it doesn't work that way at all. And then there's Protection from Evil. In BG2, Protection from evil is more than a buff that makes you stronger. It's a buff that nullifies an enemy's demon summoning spells. it forces that demon to ignore you, allowing you to focus your efforts on the enemy itself, instead of the enemy's summon. We are denied these tactical options in PoE, NOT because of "balance" (or whatever the preferred argument on this thread currently is) but because Josh Sawyer thinks that pre-buffing is Rote, and that Combat should be more quick and 'actiony'. <gag> Pre-buffing in BG results in godmode when done correctly if you have mage spells. Improved invisibility plus a few spell immunities divination makes you always invisible and immune to targeting by spells. Throw in SI: abjuration, protection from energy, protection from evil, a spell shield , globes of invulnerability and so on and the base game AI can not touch you. You need SCS and SCS II to get mages to use anti-magic spells properly. These mods also allow your enemies to prebuff as well. Check out the no=reload threads on Bioware's BG legacy forum and read up on Alessia (sp?) and her solo no reload beatdowns. In one example it would have taken seven ruby rays of reversal to start to drop the buffs and this was in Ascension Final battle. I for one am glad that the pre-buffing arms race is cancelled in this game. Now you can hit the enemy priest or mage before the game changing buffs are up. If they were all pre-buffrd to the max at the start it would be crazy. Not allowing the enemy to pre-buff while allowing you to do so would totally break immersion and make no sense. Another problem would be for the game AI to figure out which buffs to use. Better to balance the base saves and abilities of the monsters without taking pre-buffs into account and then just balance the spells for both player and monster. If you can pre-buff then the smart move is to always pre-buff. This wastes your spell resources and promotes sleeping every other fight. If you choose not to pre-buff and get rolled then you just save scum and repeat with the proper pre-buffs. How would the ability and requirement of pre-buffing increase the tactical choices in the game or improve the game experience? Only there are no such ridiculously strong buffs as Improved Invisibility or Spellshield or whatever in PoE. There would be no 'arms race' of that kind just because all spells could be cast outside of combat.

Nope.

I am talking about an argument pro-pre-buffer sympathist made to prove that no-pre-buffs in PoE are wrong: because in PnP (in DnD setting) the GM couldn't forbid players to pre-buff themselves. Truth is, you don't pre-buff yourself prior to each encounter - or prior opening every single door - because you can't predict or spot all encounters before they happen and if you do pre-buff youselves like that you're going to run out of pre-buffs and end up being in a worse situation overall, because the GM won't allow you to sleep that often. That's the point I am making. Yes, but how where does your assumption "GM does not forbid it" = "players pre-buff themselves prior to each encounter" come from?

No, they wouldn't be "balanced" around it. Read the previous posts maybe. If you don't take a priest with you at all, you couldn't win any of those fights you seem to imagine, and that is simply not the case.

Another solution perhaps: If devs want to give less incentive to players to use buffs before combat, just make base durations somewhat shorter (someone may have already suggested that here). That would make stacking of too many buffs pointless, and is a much more elegant thing to do than flagging spells with 'combat only'. Another clue perhaps that this decision was not simply for imposing the dev's idea of 'fun' on players in this single question, but maybe indeed more for technical reasons.

I am not talking about "flawed assumptions". I am talking about combat being balanced under pre-buffing and about people who argument: "Does in PnP [in DnD setting] the GM forbids his players to buff?". To which my answer is: you can't know that combat is going to happen unless you know about it, so can just as well spend all your spells on nothing and fight without them, because a GM will not allow you to rest per each door. Or you'll cast your buffs in combat, like in PoE. In both cases having pre-buffs is flawed in itself. You'd have to come up with different system altogether. People will do it, even though it wouldn't be my problem (as a single-player player). That's exactly why designers decided against pre-buffs. You can't know when combat is going to happen? Yes you can. Either because you're storming a keep and are just one room away from the guy you want to kill, or simply because you are sneaky and spot enemies before they spot you. The decision however whether you even want a priest in your party at all, and whether an enemy group is dangerous enough to require buffs, is the player's, not the games, and designers who otherwise seem to care a great deal of freedom of choice and lack of 'required' minmaxing in this game should not feel they need to restrict spellcasting in this way. When I read 'combat only', I cringe. That is action adventure style ("I cannot use that in town", yay?), and not something worthy of a C-RPG, certainly not one that wants to be an heir to IE games.

I will say it again: if the primary reason that the mechanic (pre-buffing with long-duration buffs) is clunky is "because it is tedious and time-consuming" then a macro system is not kludgy because it is an efficient and sensible solution to the problem: with such a macro system, pre-buffing with long-duration buffs is no longer tedious and time-consuming, so the mechanic is no longer clunky, and so the solution is efficient and elegant. On the other hand, if the mechanic (pre-buffing with long duration buffs) is clunky because of other reasons then a macro system is not a solution so cannot be a kludgy solution because it is not a solution! There no long duration buffs, however. And I don't want them, either.

I see Well, I prefer the first argument - it's not tedious, because no one forces you to do it just because it's possible. This would be true if they just, say, allowed pre-buffing in PoEt but didn't change the balance. As a "global" argument for games of this type it's going to be a bit more controversial, because it depends on how the game has been made. For instance, if I made a game of this type, I'd be balancing my final-boss encounter in a dungeon on the assumption of significant pre-buffing, so in a game I made you'd typically be obliged to do some, and so I'd be obliged to create some quality-of-life improvements to help you do this comfortably. This is what I just don't get. What if I don't even have a priest in my party because I don't play one and hate Durance for RP reasons? Should the game forbid me from being able to defeat this boss then? A lot in PoE is about choice, and it shows in gameplay as well. If I choose to play without buffing much, instead focusing on control/debuffing and doing lots of damage fast, that is a valid strategy. And if I want more or less difficulty, I have a slider for that.

I see Well, I prefer the first argument - it's not tedious, because no one forces you to do it just because it's possible.

I think this is a poor argument. If one's only dislike for pre-buffing is "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" then pre-buffing convenience functions are possible and address this dislike. Thus, the argument "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" is removed from the discussion. Progress is made. If you believe pre-buffing is a problem for other reasons, then you simply use those arguments instead. But you don't try to use the "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" argument to help you, because it has been demonstrated that there is no need for this. I'm actually with PrimaJunta on this one. I prefer to have pre-buffing as a encounter-to-encounter tactical option, not as a general tactical necessity that needs regular automation support (which would really somewhat defy the purpose, except if you really *want* an additional "buffing logistics minigame" mechanic, which I don't care about). Also, it would be a quite some extra work to create such an interface.

^ this, exactly. BG/BG2 fights were "cast all prebuff spells, attack, move to next encounter, repeat" Nope, never played that way. Because if I had, I'd have run out of buff spells after three or four encounters. Less at earlier levels. The point is to be able to prepare when you know you're gonna need it, not do it for every of the millions of fights in this kind of game.

"balance" is a null term anyway in PoE. This has been established several times in this thread already.

See above.

@manageri, I feel this will be my final reply, we're going in circles here, and I get the impression there's little chance of any side convincing the other here. But let's go nonetheless, one final round: "The only way casting buffs can be a waste is if those buffs are really bad. I already explained this. If that's the case, then it's a moot point whether precasting is allowed because you wouldn't ever do it then with those crappy buffs." / "Ignoring the impact of opportunity cost is absurd..." -- Final word, just to repeat: A buff is a waste if it is NOT NEEDED for a quick victory with minimal health loss, no matter how powerful it is. if I waste a spell slot on buffing something I don't need buffed for an encounter, I waste a spell slot. And a spell slot has its own opportunity cost: Once I cast a spell of a certain level, I can cast less spells of that level, which is always a loss of opportunity. If I pre-cast all my buffs for the first three encounters in a dungeon, I'll have a priest without anything left to cast. And it will be my own damn fault if I have done so, not the dev's. If I let the priest cast spells the entire fight, be they support or offensive, I achieve the same result of running dry. The impact of being able to buff before an encounter instead of being forced to ALWAYS decide 'on the fly' (and that's real force, because it does remove a tactical option instead of leaving it the player's choice) is non-existent. And let's face it: In a really tough fight, your priest will do nothing else but buff, debuff/ control and heal anyway. That is what they excel at. Not the only thing they can do, but what they do best. And finally: If you say you are only talking about the tough fights, which in your opinion most fights aren't, then why the hell would it matter if players even where 'forced' to pre-buff if it only concerns a minority of encounters in the game? "If pre-buffing is possible then it's mandatory for the devs to account for that possibility..." -- How do devs account for the possibility of players being able to limit access to their stash? Do they design dungeons around it, drop less loot, or do enemies drop just as much loot, FORCING PLAYERS to decide what they pick up and what they don't? How do devs account for the possibility of players disabling the 'maim' feature, which can result in character death? Do they lower enemy damage? Do they FORCE PLAYERS to lower the difficulty or to have a priest in a group always? Nothing would be forced here, especially not if pre-buffing (or as I prefer to call it: "being able in a C-RPG to cast all my spells when- and wherever the hell I want to, thankyouverymuch) were possible as an OPTION you can activate or de-activate to suit your invidiual notion of how you weigh opportunity cost. It's allowing for choice in how players want to play the game. And I dare you tell me now that such an option would omg FORCE PLAYERS TO ACTIVATE IT, because then you can attack every other option in Pillars as useless because by your logic, players will always play at Ultra Easy with all helper features on. Why even design harder difficulty sliders or Trial of Iron and the like, if raising the level of a challenge makes absolutely no sense from a player point of view? Maybe applying behavior economics on questions of gaming psychology works only to a certain degree, and certainly not for this topic, I'm sure. Difficulty balancing is not at all required in a game where players can set so many options to adjust difficulty in so many ways to adjust their very own challenge level. The only time you ever have a problem is either if 'ultra easy' is too hard for many or 'ultra hard' is too easy for too many. Which is why I believe no balancing at all has been done for encounters (again, against what would you balance them? Against supposed inventory, supposed party composition, supposed character level, each and every difficulty setting and option? Get real.)

This is pretty much the OP's arguments right now. Pre-buffing is terrible for the game and the game is much better now tactically with without it. I still fail to see any argument proving otherwise besides the above quote. And I don't see any argument proving pre-buffing should be prohibited. From Sawyers statement to the pro-prohibition posts here: They all depend on false assumptions about what players do, what players find fun and what players would be 'forced' to do if this was an option.

Gee, yeah, I really can't figure out whether it's better to be buffed than not. Oh, yeah, I also really can't figure out whether the devs might ever expect me to be using all those big buffs they gave me for the hardest fights. Such difficult questions. It's not a valid TACTICALLY SOUND option not to show up buffed for a fight when that's permitted. Theoretically it could be that all buffs are so ****ty that it's better to save spell slots for offensive spells, but in that case the ability to prebuff would be pointless, duh. The fact is that IF buff spells are worth casting then it is ALWAYS better to cast them right before combat than during combat, as doing so does not take away time in combat, again, DUH. If prebuffing is permitted then it's a must for the DEVELOPER to balance things with that in mind. failure to do so results in a badly balanced game. It therefore becomes a must for players to do it to meet that challenge. Duh. Saying "no" is not an argument. Nonononnononononnononononoononono. See? I might as well smashed the keyboard with my face and posted the result. Many, if not most, good buffs in NWN(2) are long lasting. If it's a particularly tough fight then casting round/level (which is more or less the shortest duration that the vast majority of spells have) spells before the fight starts is also greatly effective, which means the fight is either balanced for that, which makes it too tough if you don't do it, or it's not balanced for that, and it becomes a joke when you do it. We all know this from experience so why are you pretending it's not the case? Indeed, if the game lets me choose between a sword and a 21st century assault rifle that does 900 damage per second, well it's just the player's own damn fault if they choose the assault rifle, right? No blame whatsoever belongs to the devs for bad design, RIGHT? "It's not a valid TACTICALLY SOUND option not to show up buffed for a fight when that's permitted..." -- Yes it is, for precisely the reason I named: You don't know if buffing was necessary or if you have wasted spell slots on it. No amount of pounding your chest rhetorically will help the fact that you can't at the same time claim that a) applying all possible buffs before any encounter would suddenly become mandatory if allowed and AND b) buffing everything possible is non-mandatory if pre-buffing is not allowed. You have to decide: Is it necessary to apply all buffs in most combat situations, regardless of pre-buffing being possible or not? I say it isn't. Anything else is beside the point. Any 'combat opportunity cost' is being paid for in spell slots. Every time you cast a spell instead of another spell, your arsenal gets smaller. That's enough of an incentive to invest some thinking into whether you really want to buff everyone with short duration stuff for every fight. "if the game lets me choose between a sword and a 21st century assault rifle that does 900 damage per second" -- Same false analogy like that other guy with the +5 sword. Pre-buffing wouldn't be remotely as powerful as you make it out to be. The fact remains: You cannot seriously complain about less tactical options when you're the one doing the limiting. "Oh geez, I always show up for fights fully buffed, now my priest can't cast anything anymore, boohoo, I blame the devs for FORCING ME TO DO THIS!" <--- do you seriously not realize how inane this sounds?

Not one of the assumptions you put into this have any basis. Since you put so much work into this, let me try a final time to explain: "you can cast them before combat, or during it" -- you can also simply cast less of them, or none at all, which is perhaps advisable in the majority of encounters (give or take according to difficulty settings) Option 1: Again you seem to assume that for every time, having all the buffs up is a must. It isn't. Option 2: see above. "So why would I then, given these "more options", ever not buff before the fight?" -- Because you cannot know before a fight whether you are going to need those buffs or not. So if you buff without knowing if you actually need to buff at all, if you insist on casting buffs before every fight, you deprive yourself of tactical flexibility. At some other point in this thread, someone accurately pointed out that fog of war often prevents you from scouting the complete enemy camp, making you think it's an easy encounter when it isn't. Sure you can buff anyway just to make sure, but then you can cast less Pillars, less Barbs, less whatever Priests cast that supposedly does damage. "Therefore the devs would have to balance the fights with the assumption that the party shows up with 600 buffs up". -- No. Just no. They wouldn't have to do a thing. Especially if they made it an option. "We've seen this **** countless times with D&D CRPGs so let's not pretend prebuffing wouldn't be a no-****ing-brainer, duh." -- Perhaps to you, because it's something you always did. Me, I only cast *really* long-term buffs pre-combat (and by long term, I mean minutes or even hours gametime and therefore useful for multiple encounters, which was something NWN allowed). "And since we now figured out, even the 7 year olds, I trust, that prebuffing is the way to go ALWAYS if you're trying to play smart, we can also deduce that since we show up to the fight with all of our desired buffs up, the actual tactical choises we now have for the priest once combat starts are reduced" -- You could stow that condescending '7-year-old' crap and realize that no one forces you to play this way if pre-buffing were enabled. So if the priest now has less tactical options left, it is not the fault of the game, but a result of your own decisions.

Or, perhaps more a little more practical, a feature that cannot be turned off without starting a new game, like Path of the Damned or Trial of Iron.

I won't tire of pointing out that in PoE buffs are *not* mandatory nor would they suddenly become mandatory if you could cast them before combat. Therefore: no valid point.

That's just your assumption unless you can source it to a developer saying so. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66073-new-pc-gamer-interview-with-josh/ So there we have it. The same silly argument, right from Sawyer: "Enabling players to pre-buff = they HAVE TO DO IT omg". Utter nonsense. And because of this one nonsensical argument, I will always feel like I'm the one getting ambushed, no matter how hard I try to get 'the drop' on an enemy in any encounter. Poor way of implementing more choice for usage of 'combat opportunity'.

Mage the Ascension ( a part of World of Darkness PnP) had similiar mechanics. Maintaining one buff per character or one buff per party would be great and it would make buffing a real tactical decision instead of no brainer. Pre buffing wouldn't be an issue if you cannot stack buffs and if buffs would be more versatile. Going slightly off-topic here, but yeah: Shadowrun has a similar mechanic for every kind of buff, with a talent / perk to gain bonus concentration so you can maintain more spells without losing dice for spellcasting. I also liked Dragon Age's system of cutting mana percentages for keeping buffs up.

Nope, you can decide not to do the pre-buffing, save time and start offensively even if pre-buffing is possible. That is obvious but pointless -- sure, some fights might be so easy that buffing doesn't matter because you're going to faceroll them anyway. That doesn't change the fact that pre-combat buffing is never a negative. In-combat buffing is always both a negative and a positive -- you must decide how to use the scarce resource of combat action. That's what makes it an interesting part of tactics, rather than just busywork you have to go through before every fight. Buff or attack in combat: interesting decision, fun. Buff or don't buff pre-combat: boring decision, not fun. Again: If buffing is not the top priority, I won't do it before combat, because it means wasting spell slots for other tactics. What is the difference between the "busywork of buffing" during combat and before combat? If buffs are so mandatory to you that you would pre-buff everytime you have the chance, you would also buff in combat. If not, you would play, according to your own judgment, inferior tactics.

I still haven't heard a sound reason why buffing the party before combat starts is 'clearly the superior strategy' when at the same time you limit your offensive potential once combat starts, by way of having less spell slots left for 'nukes'. A more or less interesting game to whom exactly? And who is willing or unwilling to gimp themselves? There are players who will restrict their stash, who will disable the 'maim' feature and deal with character deaths, on Path of Iron / the Damned to boot. What gives you the position to judge what kind of playstyle if more or less 'interesting', as if it where an objective quality? I actually don't quite follow the 'buffs are too short anyway' argument right now. We are talking about 20-30 seconds baseline for many priest buffs here. 20-30 seconds can be an eternity in Eternity (couldn't resist that one, sry). 'Balance' has been discussed in this thread quite a lot - I don't believe encounters are much balanced at all (against what, exactly? All possible party compositions, equipment, talents? I don't believe it) There are general difficulty settings, a lot of options, and that's it.

Who forces you? How? Who forces players to pre-buff just because it is possible? If they prefer a challenge, they still can go in there without pre-buffing. I still haven't heard any precise reason of this 'no brainer' limiting tactical choice. If pre-buffing was allowed right now, without any other changes, what exactly would force you to go through this, and how it would it be a different tedium from buffing everything after combat has started, if you feel it is that necessary in an encounter? I haven't heard a single argument.

And that is something I wish players had a choice to do. If they don't like using player knowledge, they could just not do it, or tick an option to not being able to pre-buff.