Gromnir

Sure it is. Because claiming that we want more D&D is a blanket generalization that includes things like: wanting to force XP penalties on weapon enchantment sessions; Wanting to incorporate material components on every wizard spell; wanting strict behavior codes placed on Paladins and Clerics; and a bunch of other things that NO ONE HERE HAS SAID THEY WANTED. Perhaps if Gromnir had shown a little more honesty and debate tact and said something along the lines of "yes, folks here want more D&D-like mechanics such as Hard counters and insta-kills", this discussion would have probably died down about a page later, or shortly someone came into the thread to tell Gromnir to kindly speak for himself. 1) no, it does not create a blanket generalization alternatively 2) such a generalization does not impact the strength or weakness o' the logic regarding hard counters and insta kills. such generalizations would be a wholly different fallacy and we sure as hell ain't making such a generalization. you don't like the d&d label? is all we can see as a reason for continued obstinacy. fine, but that ain't logic and it ain't strawman. do you not understand logic... at all? read copi. honest. will at least give you a start. HA! Good Fun! ps tact is also not function o' logic. fact that you think Gromnir is mean is a problem? (again, note the question marks as we cannot genuine be sure o' what your so-called argument is at this point.) well, toughen up kiddo, 'cause ain't never been a logic fallacy related to lack o' sensitivity. wanna misuse logic fallacies? then at least learn 'em first. don't confuse being reasonable or diplomatic with logic.

It matters because when I make an Argument, I expect people to respond to it, not to make up their own argument, attribute it to me, then respond to it. It matters because I love Baldurs Gate 2's combat more than 2nd Edition AD&D's. It matters because the devs did NOT promise us the tactical combat of AD&D, but rather, the tactical combat of Icewind Dale, and therefore, asking for Hard Counters and insta-kills is a VALID request, and very much within the scope of what they promised us. The sad thing is that I personally hate Save-or-Lose, although I think that a game without at least some degree of hard counters is idiotic, yet Gromnir would lump as all together into a single strawman instead of arguing the merits or lack thereof of either. Because, y'know, it's "D&D-like" or somesuch baloney. for chissakes. somebody explain strawman to lucky. we have tried more than once, but have had no, well, luck. if Gromnir is claiming that there is no functional difference 'tween ie insta-kills and d&d insta-kills, then claim that folks is advocating for more d&d in their poe is NOT strawman. am not attributing a weak argument to you and others and then beating the proverbial stuffing outta it. is Gromnir who is saying that it don't make a difference what is the label and you ain't offered any reasonable, rational or logical reason as to why the name matters. the examples o' bg2 insta-kills and hard counters offered in this thread is NOT better 'cause they is ie as 'posed to d&d, 'least not insofar as any Logical argument we can imagine. please. somebody help lucky. he and stun need help. HA! Good Fun!

answer the question rather than deflecting. is the ie game hard counters any worse if they is labeled as d&d legacies.? we quoted where you said the difference weren't important, but perhaps you have had a change of heart, or you were channeling demons or lord only knows why you would do a 180 so quick? does calling a bg2 finger o' death a d&d legacy insta-kill make it worse than it would be if we called the same insta-kill an ie legacy? what makes the label important? is getting ridiculous but this is always how we end up with stun. HA! Good Fun!

It matters because when I make an Argument, I expect people to respond to it, not to make up their own argument, attribute it to me, then respond to it. It matters because I love Baldurs Gate 2's combat more than 2nd Edition AD&D's. It matters because the devs did NOT promise us the tactical combat of AD&D, but rather, the tactical combat of Icewind Dale, and therefore, asking for Hard Counters and insta-kills is a VALID request, and very much within the scope of what they promised us. the hypocrisy is not lost on us. "YES Gromnir. The IE games had hard counters and insta-kills. And for those of us who enjoy those mechanics, it does not matter whether they came from D&D, or whether Ray Musyka invented them in a Canadian medical school. " your response ain't logical or even reasonable and you is actual arguing against self. you insist that d&d and ie are different, but you noted earlier that the hard counters and insta-kills distinction 'tween d&d and the ie games didn't matter, which is what is being discussed. so regardless o' your like feelings for ie and less like (?) o' d&d, is there a meaningful or reasonable or rational difference for contesting the d&d label o' ie game hard counters? what makes reference to the hard counters as an ie legacy as 'posed to a d&d legacy meaningful other than some kinda blue blankee nostalgia thing you got for one. is a d&d finger of death insta-kill bad, but a ie finger of death insta-kill ok? why? is this all just some ridiculous d&d is bad, but ie is good sillines? that is a question btw. if so, it ain't reasonable or logical or rational, but you tell us what the issues is if not feel. delusional, hypocritical and apparently suffering from short-term memory loss. we can't attribute an argument to you. we can't make heads or tails outta what you are trying to say most o' the time. am frequently left guessing, but that is why we is reduced to adding so many question marks in responses to you-- cause you make no rational sense. HA! Good Fun!

you can't be this logic challenged. answer the question: why does it matter? HA! Good Fun!

when folks is using their examples o' what poe should have done from a d&d crpg that has hard counters and insta kills that is lifted entire or largely from d&d pnp mechanics, it is not unfair to claim that the feature being requested is a d&d feature. those hard counter examples offered in this thread is d&d. 'course, as been explained many times now, the label were meaningless. call it more d&d or more t&t (tunnels and trolls) not freaking matter. *sheesh* suggest that a feature is inspired and inextricably linked to d&d does not make the actual feature anymore or any less broken... or valid. btw, you have vol on your side o' an argument. that alone should give you pause. HA! Good Fun! ps explain why the difference matters. what is so significant about calling a feature a d&d legacy or an ie feature?

have universal fatigue control all actions including combat moves and spell casting. this makes constitution universal vital. ... such suggestions, including mana, were made and near universal rejected when the wizard were being developed in earnest.... years ago. HA! Good Fun!

This: Not on this thread there isn't. So that comment of yours is nothing more than a pathetic and dishonest attempt to spin our arguments into something they're not. *groan* yes folks is asking for more d&d. the statement you quote were made in the context o' hard counters and insta kills. insta kills and hard counters from the ie games is a legacy o' the d&d mechanics. but again, label d&d is soooooo not the point... and nobody can be this obdurate. the d&d label in reference to insta-kills and hard counters is complete deflection and irrelevant. ... wacky. HA! Good Fun!

suggestions that the poe wizard and priest should be less vancian and utilize mana or universal fatigue pool were derided by initial backers on these boards. such mechanics were too removed from the ie games. HA! Good Fun!

the cipher is powerful, and given the current rest mechanic, it is a much more forgiving class o play til one hits level 9ish. frequently when folks want classes to be more fun, what they is actual asking for is more power. the kit offerings for iwd2 were illustrative o' what the community thinks is fun. iwd2 were, initially, gonna be a 2nd edition game, with kits. the black isle folks presented folks with a few kit options. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/54409-dragon-age-discussion/?p=1039586 funny stuff. HA! Good Fun!

ps am not certain how funny we find sensuki complaints about quest design given our perspective o' having actual followed the message boards during and after bg2 development as well as observing the development o' poe. following totsc, the Co6 boards were very much extolling the virtues of large, set-piece dungeons. folks wanted more durlags and less random wilderness map encounters... and get rid o' the mini-quests that were little more than a 1-2 step fed ex. mindless mowing o' wilderness maps were anathema post totsc. so for bg2, bioware builds eyeless, umar hills and the planar sphere, as well as similar locales. they also gave far less attention to mini-quests and wilderness exploration. following bg2 release, the grognards complained that there weren't enough wilderness exploration in bg2. ... *sigh* when poe development were getting started, the obsidans actual addressed the issue o' durlags/eyeless v. exploration. we thought it were a mistake, but obsidian stated that they would choose a middle path. there would not be as many durlag locations/quests, but they would offer more exploration (wilderness and otherwise) and more o' the shorter quests w/o devolving into the "bring me my boots" nonsense that were so common in bg1. given the scope o' poe, there were no way obsidian could do exploration + many smaller quests as well a numerous larger set-piece quests. so, middle road were the choice. sure enough we got sensuki lamenting that obsidian didn't provide enough eyeless kinda quests. could be a vaudeville actor doing rehearsed schtick if we weren't convinced he is serious. *shrug* almost makes us feel sympathy for obsidian. almost. HA! Good Fun!

Based on my memories of BG2, I'm not exactly seeing why people are calling the Eyeless and the Thieves' Guild "investigative" quests, so in your opinion, how does the Blood Legacy quest compare to the Tanner quest (AKA the one in which I never thought of going to the relevant authorities with my clues ) in BG2 as far as investigative questlines go? we liked the tanner stuff, especially when fully realized, but bioware did kinda railroad you in bg2. the tanner quest were not providing you with clues and allowing you to uncover the ultimate villain. we were allowed to follow bioware's investigation. nevertheless, we were responding to those investigation quests as presented. am agreeing that tanner is a much better example, but it were far more similar to final act than blood legacy. is no question in our mind that tanner did similar as final act, but better. HA! Good Fun!

Didn't say that either. actual, you kinda did. you insisted that thieves guild and eyeless were better because it had more steps. depending on you count, the optional steps in blood legacy can total 'bout same as total. "The investigation is optional. I posted that earlier in the thread. The quest itself is pretty straightforward as far as progressing through it goes but the fact that townsfolk have information on the quest is good design." am gonna stop and see if you see the conflict with earlier sensuki observations. oh and our rant about monster diversity were inspired by one o' your few factual observation: "On Hard difficulty there's like 70 Skaen Cultists, most are the same five classes and most encounters are makeups of these classes. It was literally the most monotonous content I played in the game. I absolutely hated it." clearer? HA! Good Fun!

What is this, a new tactic from you? You can't refute the points, so you'll just turn around and agree with them? YES Gromnir. The IE games had hard counters and insta-kills. And for those of us who enjoy those mechanics, it does not matter whether they came from D&D, or whether Ray Musyka invented them in a Canadian medical school. And it does not matter because we don't care about D&D... Our PoE vs. IE comparison arguments on this thread are based strictly on our IE games experiences, not our D&D ones, contrary to your incessantly repeated previous claims that we're just whining because we want more D&D. Duh. what on earth are you talking about? go back and review where we asked lucky why it freaking mattered that the origin o' the ie game hard counters and insta kills. if you are agreeing that identifying as d&d or ie origin makes no difference, then you are freaking agreeing with Gromnir and Not lucky. he were the guy insisting that those pointing to ie game insta-kills and hard counters could not be lumped together with those who were advocating for d&d insta-kills and hard counters. they is the same. you are being so obtuse that it is literal beyond our comprehension to absorb. is no way you can be doing this accidental. no way. HA! Good Fun!

Excuse me, but I never said that choice OR multiple resolutions were bad things. They are good things. Personally though I'll take better gameplay content with more linearity over worse gameplay content with more choice and multiple outcomes IF I have to choose between them. You said BG2 the game had larger scope. Yes it did. I was however talking about quest complexity and to me that involves steps required to complete a quests, quest overlap/intertwining and branching. I have not played the end of Pillars of Eternity, I stopped playing during Act 3. Maybe there is some better content there. I couldn't say. Act 1 and 2 quests were all pretty basic with a step or two with some choices. The Skaen Temple is the worst dungeon because it is a large dungeon that has very disappointing loot and the worst example of copy paste encounter design in the game. On Hard difficulty there's like 70 Skaen Cultists, most are the same five classes and most encounters are makeups of these classes. It was literally the most monotonous content I played in the game. I absolutely hated it. I didn't play that dungeon in the beta because of performance issues. I upgraded my PC to an i7 4790k shortly after the game came out so I could run the levels with more units. The game still runs badly in Copperlane though. The Skaen Temple should have just included the room with Wymund and maybe one other room. The rest of the dungeon was ****ing pointless. I never found myself saying "this should be smaller" in any of the Infinity Engine games. am not seeing why additional mandatory steps make a quest better. there is any number o' possible blood legacy steps you are ignoring by identifying that it is an option than you can simple bull your way into the skaen temple and kill stuff. you say you like options, but you ignore them? well, that is hardly fair, is it? is more than a few folks in dyrford village that can contribute to your investigation. is funny that you note investigation, 'cause you can actual do investigation in blood legacy that is absent in eyeles and the thieves guild quest from bg2. in poe we can ask villagers questions, and depending on our question, dispositions and attribute scores, our Investigation will yield different information. but again, you should at least be recognizing that what you think is objective is actual just sensuki opinion. more mandatory steps? oh, and multiple resolutions has never impressed us. is easy to add multiple resolutions at the end o' a quest where no more possible quest or dialogue bifurcation is taking place. multiple options previous to the end is far more taxin on the developer, and that is what poe were doing that bg2 often failed to do. and the monotony o' the skaen temple is, again, opinion. weren't our favorite portion o' the game neither, but the sacrifice pit is kinda unique, and the multiple ways to gain access to the temple make it less monotonous for people who didn't play it dozens o' times in the beta. heck, can skip a significant number o battles using sneak and the rope trick, which makes much o't the monotony you found optional. fewer enemies? well, again, that is part o' scope. bg2 had multiple games to build up a rogue's gallery. for example, the trolls that caused lucky such trouble were actual in iwd. is more than a few monsters bioware used in bg2 that were black isle work product... shoulda' used black isle elementals in our estimation. regardless, skaen temple area has two varieties o' beetles and four or five variations o' skaen cultists, each with unique abilities. the ending boss encounter has additional unique foes... 3 ish? compare to firewine bridge dungeon, or any bg1 dungeon. the largest single bg1 dungeon is under candlekeep where had skeletons, phase spiders, ghasts, and dopplegangers and greater doppelgangers. add the exit caves for basilisk and an enemy party. and lets be honest, the poe foes offer far more significant tactical challenge than any o' those bg1 critters. heck, it strikes us as fair to combine the wilderness map above the skaen temple to make a similar comparison as that is a possible ingress point. if we do so, those two maps got more foe variation than all the candlekeep catacombs, and each poe foe is presenting more varied challenges. "I never found myself saying "this should be smaller" in any of the Infinity Engine games." again with what you don't see as opinion? HA! Good Fun!

Excellent try! But we all know full well that the entire discussion saw us pitting PoE against the IE games, NOT D&D. If it was strictly about wanting D&D, then we wouldn't have a whole lot to debate here, since PoE itself takes so much from D&D already. In fact, it takes some things from D&D that the BG series (for example) doesn't. Will Saves; Fortitude Saves; Reflex Saves; Reach weapon mechanics; a modified attack of opportunity system; A Disintegration spell that isn't an insta-kill; A class that plays like a psionisist; A knockdown ability for fighters; Animal companions for Rangers; Stealth, lockpicking and trap disarming as skills that everyone can use; Wizard Spellbooks as physical objects that take up inventory space....ETC. ETC. No, man. It's YOU who are being an obtuse yutz. It's YOU who came here, spouted a retarded gross generalization of what others want. And now it's YOU who's getting called out for it. you are making no sense at all. the infinity engine game hard counters and insta-kills are problematic or not regardless o' their origin. their origin is d&d rules, but so what? if hard counter's had been dreamt up by kevin ohlen while running his pnp campaigns before working on bg, it wouldn't make one bit o' difference to a discussion o' their usefulness or detriment. talk 'bout deflection. you are pathological. Indeed and I remember those days too. Rather, now, he simply ignores criticism. It must be a frustrating babel for him, but I do wonder if he's perhaps too tin-eared nowadays? dunno. Gromnir has been more than a little bit harsh with josh sawyer over the years. even so, we don't feel that he treats us with any kinda animosity, though doing so would be understandable. yeah, he is responding less frequent or less open-- we suspect that josh is currently posting and fielding criticism with regularity on these boards albeit not as josh. we haven't noticed unreasonable pique from him. HA! Good Fun!

Blood Legacy quest has less steps than both The Cult of the Unseeing Eye and Mae'Var's Guildhall and the investigation part is completely optional, and mostly for flavor. It is also accompanied by the worst dungeon in the game (thankfully you can almost completely bypass it though) and the dialogue with Wymund also has several issues. Both Unseeing Eye and Mae'Vars had multiple steps and good accompanying content. To complete Blood Legacy, all you need to do is go to the Tanner's shop, take his key, go into the dungeon and go into Wymund's room and resolve it there. Obsidian do improve some aspects of quest design. There's usually a fair bit of choice and often multiple resolutions. They often have 'more' of that than the BG games, although not always 'better'. Personally I care more about actual content associated with the quest than that stuff. *sigh* multiple ways to complete a quest is a good thing, no? for a codexian grognard, the fact that you need not adhere to the narrative rails should be a positive. need gaal's key to open a magically locked door is exact the kinda thing codexians typical rail against, yes? also, we already noted that bg2 had larger scope. oh, and we suspect that the additional steps o' final act slipped your notice. however, it is good you note the consequences o' poe resolutions that is absent in the typical ie games. again, we see lotta opinions... and some hypocrisy. and "worst dungeon" language is exact the kinda empty criticism we is referencing. HA! Good Fun!

he not need our pov, but we will observe that insofar as boardie feedback/interplay, josh has matured considerably over the years. in the past it were extreme easy to goad josh into emotional responses. those outbursts were illuminating. when josh got steamed, he were no longer speaking as a black isle employee, but rather as josh sawyer. we kinda miss those days. one too may iwd2 ranger moments has given josh experience and maturity to weather the worst the boards have to offer. regardless, josh handles criticism with far more maturity and reserve than he did in the past, but am kinda missing the past. HA! Good Fun!

is a lotta very general criticisms, which is ok as is sensuki's opinions. your opinions don't actual require justifications. claim that cult o' the eyeless or bg2 thieves guild quests is superior investigative design to poe final act or blood legacy is opinions. no doubt you will justify your opinions, at least to your self, but am sure you will recognize that the bg2 eyeless and thieves guild quests were having numerous flaws, so folks who wanna illustrate bg2 quest design shortcomings will have plenty o' fodder. we will concede that the scope o' bg2 were bigger and if such scope were vital, then we understand some disappointment with poe. even so, we personal weren't expecting bg2 scope from poe. the obsidian dev-speak regarding the number and size o' maps notwithstanding, we never thought it were possible for poe to have the kinda scale as did bg2. coulda' had a few more larger non critical path quests, but doing so can actual make a game feel even smaller as the amount o' optional quests is functional reduced. development is ultimately a zero sum game after all. make some quests bigger and more involved either necessitates removal o' other quests or the reduction in size o' remaining quests. oh, and narrative mess were kinda an endemic problem for the bg series. our complaints regarding the bg narrative is ferocious. bg2 were less o' a problem for us, but am also recalling when bg2 were first released just how much nerd rage we encountered from the core Co6 followers o' bg2. it may be hard to believe, but the folks who followed bg2 development will be able to chime in and share regarding the initial complaints o' the dedicated boardies regarding story aspects o' bg2. shortly after release, the ardent followers o' that game were the ones most likely to be dismissive o' bg2 story as nothing more than the traditional wizard-gone-mad-with-power schtick. is perhaps amusing to us, given our perspective, to see same old cycle repeat itself. far too often we see folks who got... issues with a game, use narrative as a bit o' a smokescreen. perhaps sensuki is different, but it not seem that way at the moment. "uninteresting" is a valid complaint, but it is not subject to meaningful response, is it? sensuki's opinions o' narrative and encounter/quest design is no less valid than the mob, but his opinion not seem any more valid or well-defined than vol's. as for mechanics issues... we heard sensuki's complaints during the beta. is no need to reexamine as we did not anticipate that he would have some kinda sea change experience playing the full game as opposed to the beta. many o' sensuki's mechanics concerns is at least well-considered. cain and sawyer and the other developers apparent disagreed with sensuki, but that not make sensuki wrong. regardless, anybody who listened to sensuki feedback regarding mechanics leading up to the release has no reason to be surprised at his current perspective. HA! Good Fun!

doesn't matter if combat is over when the endurance penalty hits. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

So what. PoE uses D&D mechanics. Stop changing the subject. No, Luckmann is right. People asking for More IE Game feel are asking for just that: More IE game feel. D&D was only brought up because YOU brought it up. you are as much a yutz as luckman. again, not only is the ie games use o' hard counters and insta-kills direct attributable to D&D, but focus on the d& d aspect as if that is important is... stoopid. hypothetical, so am gonna use "if" more than once. IF we were seeing folks complain o' poe deflection + dr hybrid and IF numerous people were using the ie games thac0 as an example o' how combat mechanics should be done, then it would be perfect appropriate to identify thac0 from bg2 or iwd as an ie mechanic but as a d&d mechanic as well. yes, thac0 were utilized in the ie games, and heck, there were even some few instances wherein ie game thac0 were slight different than d&d thac0, but it would be idiotic to ignore to pretend that thac0 were not in the ie games Because it were integral to d&d mechanics. the examples o' insta kills and hard counters from ie games is no different. those examples given is direct resultant o' the d&d nature o' the ie games. also, and this is more important, which is why we are absolute certain you and luckman is hopeless to understand, but it don't freaking matter. the d&d nature o' the ie hard counters and insta-kill were never a significant factor. is ie insta-kills good or bad for no reason other than their d&d legacy? 'course not. is the fact that hard counters from the ie games got their origin in d&d pnp rules books important to any reasonable or rational person? we hope not. D&D were never important. label the hard counters as d&d does not transform good to bad, or bad to good. the strengths and weakness o' insta-kills and hard counters is NOT dependent on d&d.... but that should be obvious. unless d&d killed luckman's puppy when he were 5, we can't think o' a plausible reason why he would be so affected by the mention o' d&d. yeah, ie game hard counters and insta-kills is a d&d legacy, but why on earth is that significant to lucky? we were simple letting luckman hang himself til he recognized the irony o' using a logic fallacy to complain 'bout our use o' D&D language. call strawman is particular funny. however, am happy to see you gleeful leap onto the gallows next to lucky. is proof-positive to us that all is right with the world. HA! Good Fun!

there is a tendency to reduce int on paladins as it has such a minimal impact on zealous focus aura area. however, intelligence significantly extends such stuff as liberating exhortation, hastening exhortation and even lay on hands, which effective increases the amount o' healing that ability does. intelligence is our primary attribute for paladins thus far. HA! Good Fun!

I think confusion is actually OP the way it works now. First, it seems that instead of acting randomly (as one would expect from a confused person), confused targets become your allies, for all intents and purposes. And what makes it superior to charm/domination is that they don't snap out of it if you attack them, so you can finish them off with complete impunity. our experience is different. as often as not, the confused will wander aimlessly or stand stationary doing nothing. aside: confusion and domination does make our use o' long duration aoe spells more rare as it can lead to quirky results. our summoned adra beetle gets confused by... whatever. our beetle then walks through our wall of fire. our summoned beetle is no longer confused but is genuinely and open hostile towards us. the graze/hit/crit mechanic is unforgiving and it may lead to oddly anti-climactic encounters. petrify need only be effective for a second or two to make a host o' other spells near guaranteed hits or crits. am understanding why many do not like the approach, but our solution would be to address encounter design rather than the mechanics. "What's that? Nothing? Not a single example? None? Two pages dug into a hole, posed with the request to substantiate, even in part, a single one of your claims, yet nothing? Shocking, Gromnir. Simply shocking!" not need to do so as you still haven't gotten over your logic/reason hurdle yet. am not so generous that we would allow you to ignore your silliness in trying distinguishing ie from d&d insta kill and/or hard counter mechanics, and why on earth you think the difference is significant. HA! Good Fun! Hmm, you might be right about confused enemies acting randomly. Perhaps I got the idea of a full allegiance flip because former allies start attacking them immediately. As for grazes being equivalent to full hits, I still disagree. Most (possibly all) hard stuns target either fort or will, but don't lower it, so successive stunning doesn't become easier. They do lower reflex and deflection, but lowering deflection for a short time is obviously not an insta-kill, and reflex spells are not particularly deadly. in kinda an opposite-but-the-same scenario, it were rather annoying when our auto-targeting party unloaded a fusillade into our sudden dominated wizard... after the third or fourth time aloth died from friendly fire, Gromnir decided it might behove us to make adjustments to our tactics. HA! Good Fun!

didn't read the genesis post, but don't take that as insulting as we didn't get past the second paragraph o' the codex review. somehow seems unfair if we would read the post about the review but not the review. apologies if there is something genuine insightful that we missed. am simply curious why we need a separate thread to comment about the codex review, a review which already has a thread. is no biggie. more threads doesn't bother us, but this thread does have the appearance o' an attention grab... which isn't a big deal either. HA! Good Fun!

I think confusion is actually OP the way it works now. First, it seems that instead of acting randomly (as one would expect from a confused person), confused targets become your allies, for all intents and purposes. And what makes it superior to charm/domination is that they don't snap out of it if you attack them, so you can finish them off with complete impunity. our experience is different. as often as not, the confused will wander aimlessly or stand stationary doing nothing. aside: confusion and domination does make our use o' long duration aoe spells more rare as it can lead to quirky results. our summoned adra beetle gets confused by... whatever. our beetle then walks through our wall of fire. our summoned beetle is no longer confused but is genuinely and open hostile towards us. the graze/hit/crit mechanic is unforgiving and it may lead to oddly anti-climactic encounters. petrify need only be effective for a second or two to make a host o' other spells near guaranteed hits or crits. am understanding why many do not like the approach, but our solution would be to address encounter design rather than the mechanics. "What's that? Nothing? Not a single example? None? Two pages dug into a hole, posed with the request to substantiate, even in part, a single one of your claims, yet nothing? Shocking, Gromnir. Simply shocking!" not need to do so as you still haven't gotten over your logic/reason hurdle yet. am not so generous that we would allow you to ignore your silliness in trying distinguishing ie from d&d insta kill and/or hard counter mechanics, and why on earth you think the difference is significant. HA! Good Fun!