Yosharian

It's a little presumptuous to say that something is unnecessary because you don't like it. It's not clear at all what percentage of Deadfire players, or the general gaming populace, is interested in turn-based, so it's also just speculation to say 'very few' of the playerbase is interested in it. For example, I have been vocal about my dislike of Deadfire's voiceover narration, and frequently made requests to have the option to turn it off in the options. I know I'm not alone in this. However, I would never dream of asking for it to be removed for future games, because if others enjoy it (and many clearly do), then it's not a waste of resources. Turn-based is optional, and just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's unnecessary.

Ultimately, this discussion is not worth continuing because a lot of the elements being discussed are down to personal taste. What elements can be delved into in a more objective manner are also not getting us anywhere because we both have very different ideas on how they work, and it's not clear at all who is correct on each point, from a neutral perspective. While I'm willing to say 'well, we disagree on this, so I'm not going to debate further on it because it's a waste of time for both of us', you can't respect that, instead seeing it as a victory that one person in a discussion decides not to debate further. See it that way if you wish, but I hardly think that means you are good at debating while I am not. As for the accusation that I'm being disrespectful, that's probably fair, I can be an ***hole sometimes.

Freaking. Awesome. Both of them. **** dude, my Watcher just got a whole lot more bad-ass.

The rest isn't worth responding to.

Most of your characters != tank

Intelligence is great in turn-based. Maxed on all 6 of my characters

1 action per turn, less attacks, possibly, but less attacks means less damage, means more turns, net number of attacks received = same, thus defenses not less valuable, as you claimed

Just because this has gotten terribly boring and I found this on the internet: This was written by William Ewart Fairbairn, in his book 'Get Tough'. Who is he? Interesting, tell me more about this 'dagger', oh internet. Fascinating, now let us return to the words of AeonsLegend: "No one in their right mind would actually use a dagger in actual combat, that only happens in fantasy games where "rogues" are a thing. That stuff never existed in the real world." So on the one hand we have a self-proclaimed internet commenter who claims to have combat experience and states that daggers were never used in actual combat. And on the other hand we have a decorated British Royal Marine who developed his own hand-to-hand combat methods, created his own fighting system and helped develop an actual dagger that was issued to British Commandos, who states that close-quarter combat there is no deadlier weapon than a knife! I wonder who is right here... Yes, you're absolutely right, of course. I apologise.

> rogues hardly ever do in fantasy games I mean. In my PnP games I see that kind of thing very often. And it's often the case that a concealed weapon can be 10x more effective than a big, obvious, clunky weapon like a pike. But ok, I bow to your superior knowledge here, I guess I just imagined all the times the party rogue went up behind someone to slit their throat, or stab them through a vital organ. Or slipped a dagger into someone's side when nobody was looking. > Plus it is impossible vs steel plate armor Ah yes, we already established that everyone is always wearing plate armor in Fantasy games, how could I forget this. > Like I said before. If you're a farmer or some other person without knowledge of actual combat and the only thing available is a dagger and you actually trained to use it, then by all means it is a good idea to wield it. It's so strange that you keep saying a farmer would use a weapon such as a dagger. It's like... totally wrong. Where are you getting this from? > A 1v1 in a tavern and the dagger wielder will still lose to someone with a sword or a pole with equal skill. Facepalm. You just don't get it, do you? > But the original statement we let go of was my mention of the blunt weapon was more effective vs heavy armor because bladed weapons cannot pierce full steel plate in real life. We somehow lost track of that point because you're trying to convince me that a fantasy situation is actual reality. But please try to convince me next time that you attacking an M1 Abrams tank with a dagger is also a good idea. But only if it's not a battlefield situation of course. And only if you can sneak up on it. None of this has anything to do with the point I was making, which was to address the statement you made "No one in their right mind would actually use a dagger in actual combat". If you want to stop talking about that and instead talk about how blunt weapons are more effective vs heavy plate armor... well, yes. Of course they are. Well, that was illuminating.

To address your points in greater detail: > Resolve may be a dump stat, but it's nowhere near as severe a dump stat as Dexterity (which you can dump completely with no consequence) That's not the case, there are consequences. There are effectively few consequences because Initiative is not that important, but it's incorrect to say that there are no consequences. It would still be much better to act earlier in the turn if it were possible, just the same as it would be better to have that +Deflection if it were possible. It's just that other attributes are more valuable, in both cases. > not to mention that low defenses don't mean as much because you aren't being attacked nearly as much) in Turn-Based Mode. What does that even mean? Not attacked nearly as much? That makes no sense. If it were true that the number of attacks per given amount of time has gone down (which you haven't proven), it still wouldn't lower the importance of defenses, because the actual number of attacks received hasn't gone down, just been stretched over a slightly longer period of time. > And well... that's the only substantive point you made to that effect so there's not much else to argue against. Because I wasn't creating an argument, I was offering an alternative viewpoint. That was the entire point of my post. Otherwise I would have offered many more examples. > Each attribute in real-time has value (yes, even Resolve) Same is true for Turn-Based, strictly speaking. > half of the attributes either suck or are worse in almost every situation unless you're gaming the system towards specific break points. Half the attributes? This is straight up false. > This irrevocably makes combat worse, because the problem isn't just that you "can't follow build guides" anymore, it's that there are much fewer good and viable builds to begin with. It's not clear at all that there are fewer good and viable builds, because while Turn-Based weakens attributes such as Dexterity, this creates a space for other attributes to shine, thus creating the possibility of new, different builds. > Equipment choice has been similarly damaged, since Initiative is only situationally useful, unlike the original Action Speed which was always useful - "Equipment choice has been similarly damaged, since Resolve is only situationally useful" - "Equipment choice has been similarly damaged, since Armor is only situationally useful" ^^ things which can be said about RTWP. You're just spinning the situation to make it appear as if the loss of Action Speed as a 'king' stat is the end of the world for the game. It isn't. > meaning balance-wise there's almost no reason not to dump your Dex and then throw Heavy Armor onto most of your characters As opposed to RTWP, where there's almost no reason not to dump your Resolve and throw the lightest armors onto most of your characters... > Turn-Based also rewards extremely cheesy strategies like kiting with ranged characters and just generally running around like an idiot Bahaha are you actually serious right now? As if you can't use kiting in RTWP? Kiting is like the number 1 cheese strat in RTWP. > even beyond this, and this is just the stuff I had marked down after the first HOUR of playing TBM, I'm sure there are many more nuanced flaws Speculation. > issues that the original didn't have because the original mechanics were actually designed to operate in the format they were created for That turn-based wasn't the original design format doesn't necessarily mean that RTWP is better. Again, you're just speculating. > Either way, Deadfire is really well-balanced in RTWP. There's an incredible amount of build diversity, attributes scale reliably in a way that makes sure every point is always useful and dumping any one will always be felt, there's a compelling reason to choose between different armor weights and weapon speeds because Action Speed/Recovery Time fundamentally effects your damage output and number of hits as compared to the other side, running around recklessly is quickly punished and you're consistently rewarded for having your units in position before battle conditions change, and so on. Yeah I disagree with practically everything you just said. Which was my original point. > Turn-Based is provably a shallower, less balanced, more unpolished, and significantly worse version of the game. You haven't proved that. > I honestly believe it's absolutely crazy to suggest that it's somehow an "improvement" to Deadfire's combat, you'd have to be looking at this situation through an insanely tinted pair of glasses to see it that way Just because you lack the ability to understand that another person might appreciate turn-based mode differently to yourself, doesn't mean I, or any of the other people who think turn-based is actually better than RTWP, are looking at the situation through an 'insanely tinted pair of glasses'. > but it is in no way an improvement Yes it is. Subjectively. > especially when core mechanics often don't function properly or are ignored by the AI, Engagement is so ridiculously finicky there and the AI often seems to just intentionally provoke Disengagement Attacks even when it's a hilariously bad idea I haven't seen that behaviour. I've seen some mob types ignoring Engagement, but most don't, and the ones that did were 'zombie'-type mobs such as the ones in lower Neketaka. Of course, we know that AI in RTWP is perfect and never makes such mistakes, yes yes. It's only turn-based mode that could have such issues. > this claim that individual actions are more significant in TBM just doesn't sit right with me. Like, sure, they get spotlighted more thanks to the way the mode works. It's probably because you didn't read what I posted properly. Here it is again: So what I said was, it allows abilities to shine, to be experienced in greater detail. I did not say that they were more 'significant'. That's your incorrect interpretation, not what I said. When you said 'sure they get spotlighted more', that's actually all I said. So we actually agree on this point. > attacks are less effective and deal less damage over time because you output so much fewer of them with the dexterity changes That's not been my experience. Attacks still feel very strong to me. My 2H quarterstaff fighter is one of my strongest damage dealers. It feels ****ing awesome when he smacks enemies for high damage. > because there's less punishment for moving and attacking simultaneously (since enemies can't react right away) you're under quite a bit less pressure while trying to set up any particular strategy. This I actually agree with. But, I like this. I prefer the tactical style of turn-based over the pressure of RTWP. > I think you're underselling just how tedious TBM is. As I said, damage values are still tuned for real-time, but the pacing of the game is much slower. Even on fast mode, battles take an absolute eternity. The beach cavern on POTD in Real-Time takes 10 maybe 15 minutes at most to clear, the same cavern takes more than an hour on TBM (I believe I even have video evidence of this). And yet, I still prefer it. How can this be?? It's a conundrum. Perhaps one possible issue could be that you're judging the entire mode from one hour of play in the tutorial cavern, as opposed to actually experiencing the rest of the game, as I have done. > I literally cannot imagine trying to beat the whole game on TBM, And yet, I'm LITERALLY doing it right now! I can't even! > you are greatly understating the depth of its incredible number of very problematic issues, and greatly overstating the original games flaws in comparison. I don't think that's true.

> Deadfire is an extremely balanced game in RTWP, and your examples do not in any way prove otherwise. I gave one example, and it was an off-hand one. Resolve is a dump stat for the vast majority of builds. This is because Deflection is a statistic that offers increasing returns as it increases (explained here). It's also because the amount of Deflection you gain from each point of Resolve doesn't compare to the amount of damage/healing you gain from MIG, or the gains from other attributes (aside from CON, which has its own problems). For example, the greatest amount of ACC you can obtain from an item is about +3 (equivalent to 3 PER, and PER offers very little aside from Accuracy). And +Accuracy items are quite rare. But the greatest amount of Deflection you can gain is +7 (equivalent to +7 Resolve, and again, Resolve offers very little aside from Deflection bonuses). And +Deflection items aren't that rare. But don't take my word for it, just look at the endless numbers of builds in the build repository that dump Resolve. This attribute just isn't valuable enough in the Deadfire meta. But again, this was one off-hand example. I could go into further detail, but really it would be pointless. You think Deadfire is well-balanced, I do not. There it is. And that was my ultimate point - that there is not a perfect consensus on these things, despite the echo chamber that you'll find here on the Obsidian forums that Deadfire is the greatest RPG ever made and is absolutely perfect. (If you visit other forums, you may well find dissent on that point) Which serves to illustrate that when considering whether Turn-Based mode is worth considering, you should try it out for yourself, rather than taking the word of the RTWP-disciples here on the Obsi forums as gospel. Which was my original point, as evidenced by this quote:

Exactly.

Ooh you're almost there, you've almost understood what I was trying to get at...

When you begin casting some abilities, a certain amount of time (measured by what's called Initiative in turn-based Deadfire) pass before the ability is cast. Think of Initiative as being measured in units of time. So an interrupt can prevent such an ability from being cast, and the ability is lost - that is to say, the resource that would have been spent to cast the ability is used up, and the ability fails. However, many enemies that rely on such abilities have quite fast cast speed, and thus aren't easily-interruptable. Sometimes you get the opportunity to interrupt enemies and prevent their casts. This may happen more often if your Initiative (a measure of how fast you act in the round) is faster. However, you don't have the ability to choose when, in the round, you take your action, aside from at your Initiative value, or at the end of the turn. So if you get your turn before the caster, and he chooses to cast something that takes a bit of time but still finishes before the end of the turn, you don't get to interrupt him. You could, however, stun him, or paralyze him, or whatever. That would cause him to lose his turn. Proning doesn't cause a wasted turn, but it grants attack bonuses to comrades who attack before the target stands up. So Initiative, and Interrupts, are of dubious value, generally, although they could be useful in certain circumstances. Bear in mind that stacks of Concentration prevent Interrupts, like in RTWP.

I'd like to be the lone dissenter here and voice my appreciation for Deadfire's turn-based mode. Initially, upon hearing of the new turn-based mode, I was extremely sceptical. I figured it would make battles tedious, and slow down gameplay. I imagined all the ways the game wouldn't be balanced anymore. I assumed it would be half-baked. Now those assumptions weren't entirely wrong. The mode isn't entirely balanced. There are some abilities that are way stronger than they used to be. Dexterity is now a dump stat, for example. Battles definitely require more patience, and it sometimes gets a little tedious waiting for enemies to take their turn. Sometimes it feels like the mode hasn't been properly implemented. There are tooltips that don't show round durations, instead showing old durations, for example. However, I feel like they aren't deal breakers: Deadfire has never been balanced anyway. Resolve has always been a dump stat except for tanks, and even some tanks don't rely on it. So is one more dump stat suddenly going to make Deadfire significantly worse? I don't think so. It does mean that you can't rely on RTWP theorycrafting/guides. But I view this as a new challenge, something fun, rather than a negative. It's a new meta, if you like. Some are claiming that it 'ruins' Deadfire's mechanics, as if Deadfire's mechanics systems in RTWP are well-designed, and work really well together. They don't. There's very little to ruin, frankly. The entire system is a mess, whether you play it in RTWP or TB. I personally haven't found the tedium too much to handle. And turn-based brings a new way of experiencing combat, one that allows individual actions and abilities to shine in a way that they just can't in RTWP. You experience each action in greater detail than you might if there were umpteen other things happening at the same time. However, I can't deny that occasionally, some battles are tedious, and on POTD sometimes it feels like you're attacking mountains of hitpoints. So it balances out, and ultimately I find myself preferring TB. A lot of the issues seem to have been changed or fixed. I haven't played since 5.0 dropped, so I can't say for sure. But, hopefully, it feels a lot more like it's part of the core experience, rather than something tacked on, despite the aforementioned balance issues. That said, even prior to 5.0, when turn-based definitely felt tacked on, I still felt that it was an excellent addition to the game, and definitely worth experiencing. Ultimately, I really think you should try out turn-based, and do so with an open mind. You'll probably go back to RTWP, just like the others in this thread, but there's a chance you might like it, that it might breathe new life in to the game. Personally I feel that Deadfire's combat is dramatically improved by turn-based, and I'm glad that they implemented it, warts-and-all. And again, I say that as someone who was very sceptical about it, initially.

Ah, that's interesting. I didn't know about the stacking issue. Deflection sounds straightforward, as many abilities straight up grant Deflection as a bonus. But, for Penetration, I'm struggling to think of any, outside of perhaps a Cipher spell? The PEN modals stack with Tenacious/Energized, right?

Yeah I really don't think 4% stride is going to get me to put points into Dex. It might discourage me from dumping it completely. But in any case, with my latest characters I wasn't going below 7 in any attribute.

In Turn-Based mode, Action Speed is far less important, because acting earlier in the turn (Initiative) is of limited benefit to most builds, and actions are limited to one per turn regardless of your Dexterity. This means that weapon modals that have Action Speed penalties are great because they essentially have no cost. So, I thought I'd list them all. Scores are just for fun and my own reference, use your own judgement. Ranged Weapons Arbalest: knocks targets prone on hit. Prone targets simply stand up on their turn, however it can still be useful because your allies can beat the crap out of the prone'd target before he gets to do that. 7/10 Crossbow: interrupts target on hit. Can be useful for interrupting enemy mages when they cast spells, however this requires being lucky enough to get your turn before they finish casting, which isn't likely. 4/10 War Bow: +2 PEN. Incredibly powerful against high-armor targets, or generally in the higher difficulties. 9/10. Arquebus: +20 ACC. Insanely strong accuracy buff. 10/10. Rod: AoE effect. Not sure how powerful this is, but it's almost certainly fantastic with on-hit effects. ??/10 Melee One-Handed Battle Axes: 10% of Damage dealt is reapplied per 3.0 sec for 60.0 sec. I've heard this is exceptionally strong in RTWP mode, so getting it for free sounds pretty crazy. 10/10. Mace: Target receives -1 Armor Rating for 10.0 sec when hit. Very strong against high-armor targets, or generally in the higher difficulties. Also, provides a benefit to everyone attacking the target, not just the wielder. 8/10. Rapier: +20 ACC. Insanely strong accuracy buff. 10/10. Sabre: +2 PEN. Incredibly powerful against high-armor targets, or generally in the higher difficulties. 9/10. Stilletto: +2 PEN. Incredibly powerful against high-armor targets, or generally in the higher difficulties. 9/10. Warhammer: +2 PEN. Incredibly powerful against high-armor targets, or generally in the higher difficulties. 9/10. Shields Small Shield: +15 ACC after being missed with enemy melee weapon attack. Seems rather weak considering how much harder it is to Miss in turn-based. This could only really be useful on someone with super-high deflection, and would they be using a Small Shield? 3/10. Medium Shield: 30% resistance against weapon attacks. This is the bomb for anybody who takes damage (and why else would you be using a shield?). However, I wonder which enemy attacks don't count as 'weapon' attacks? Could be less powerful than it appears, but even if it only works against kith enemies, it's still pretty great for a tank. 7/10. Two-Handed Quarterstaff: +20 Deflection against melee weapons. Fantastic Deflection bonus for melee characters. However, one has to question whether a two-handed specialist using a reach weapon needs Deflection per se, as opposed to +2 PEN or one of the other bonuses that some other weapons have, which are tremendous for DPS. Still, it's very nice to have. 8/10.

Well, there were barely any changes anyway

Could you provide a source on that? I must have missed it

I am wondering if we can get a simple dual-wielding vs two-handed analysis, now that turn-based mode is out of beta and we know it won't change any more? For those that don't know, the basic change to the question of 2H vs DW, in turn-based mode, is that both weapons strike on standard attacks now, rather than only on special abilities that use Full Attack. My immediate gut reaction on this topic is that surely DW must output a lot more damage than anything else, purely because of this change. But, I'm not a mechanics expert, at all. Thoughts?

Source: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/109231-patch-notes-for-500/ Thoughts? Does this dramatically reduce the effectiveness of builds such as the Fate Testarossa in turn-based mode? Or is this spell, and builds which use it, still viable?

I am currently in the middle of a turn-based playthrough and I can tell you that Dexterity is pretty much a dump stat in this mode. Going earlier in the turn order is a dubious benefit at best. It could be somewhat useful for controller characters, but personally I'm not convinced it's anywhere near as important as Perception, Might, Intelligence, etc, on 99% of builds.

Not anymore!

That's only for very short-duration abilities that last, say, 1 or 2 rounds. And even ones that last 2 rounds can quite easily reach 3 rounds if you have decent INT. Abilities that last for 5+ rounds are easily boosted dramatically by INT. I recently build a custom 5-man party and almost every single character had maxed INT because the boost in buff/debuff duration is really powerful. I can't deny that for some characters, average or only slightly above-average INT is fine, but a dump stat? No way.