[The Problem With Turn-Based: Not in POE]

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.

[how is TB mode after patc 5?]

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.

[Portraits IV]

2 hours ago, bringingyouthefuture said:

Here you go!

 

 

 

Okay, may try again, not getting the lines right on the face ...

 

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

[how is TB mode after patc 5?]

The rest isn't worth responding to.

[how is TB mode after patc 5?]

Most of your characters != tank

[how is TB mode after patc 5?]

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

[how is TB mode after patc 5?]

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

[Devoted: Chromoprismatic Quarterstaff]

Just because this has gotten terribly boring and I found this on the internet:

Quote

In close-quarters fighting there is no more deadly weapon than the knife. In choosing a knife there are two important factors to bear in mind: balance and keenness. The hilt should fit easily in your hand, and the blade should not be so heavy that it tends to drag the hilt from your fingers in a loose grip. It is essential that the blade have a sharp stabbing point and good cutting edges, because an artery torn through (as against a clean cut) tends to contract and stop the bleeding. If a main artery is cleanly severed, the wounded man will quickly lose consciousness and die.

This was written by William Ewart Fairbairn, in his book 'Get Tough'.  Who is he?

Quote

British Commando and other elite units were issued an especially slender dagger, the Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife, developed by William E. Fairbairn and Eric A. Sykes from real-life close-combat experiences gained while serving on the Shanghai Municipal Police Force.

Interesting, tell me more about this 'dagger', oh internet.

Quote

The Fairbairn–Sykes fighting knife is a double-edged fighting knife resembling a dagger or poignard with a foil grip developed by William Ewart Fairbairn and Eric Anthony Sykes in Shanghai based on concepts which the two men initiated before World War II while serving on the Shanghai Municipal Police in China.

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...

Quote

All you've done so far is cheer for Boeroer's picture of a dagger as a backup weapon and cheer for his second post about an imaginatory fantasy battle in a tavern. Maybe you should add pnp experience there as well. That may convince me that any of that works in the real world. Oh wait, it doesn't.

Yes, you're absolutely right, of course.  I apologise.

[Devoted: Chromoprismatic Quarterstaff]

5 minutes ago, AeonsLegend said:

Which is what rogues hardly ever do in fantasy games, just like pillars. Plus it is impossible vs steel plate armor, which also exists in Pillars.

Exactly. Except that it is wrong. The best scenario is where you use your dagger for peeling your apple. 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. Just know that you will be at a great disavantage vs a person with an actual weapon made for combat. you don't need a battlefield situation for this fact to remain. A 1v1 in a tavern and the dagger wielder will still lose to someone with a sword or a pole with equal skill. Period.

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.

> 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.

[how is TB mode after patc 5?]

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:

Quote

[turn-based] 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.

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.

[how is TB mode after patc 5?]

10 hours ago, Novem said:

I don't know what game you're playing, but Deadfire is an extremely balanced game in RTWP, and your examples do not in any way prove otherwise. 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) or even itself (both attributes which are reliant on duration are worse, not to mention that low defenses don't mean as much because you aren't being attacked nearly as much) in Turn-Based Mode. And well... that's the only substantive point you made to that effect so there's not much else to argue against.

Regardless, the suggestion that there's "very little to ruin" is absurd. Each attribute in real-time has value (yes, even Resolve). In Turn-Based, half of the attributes either suck or are worse in almost every situation unless you're gaming the system towards specific break points. 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. Equipment choice has been similarly damaged, since Initiative is only situationally useful, unlike the original Action Speed which was always useful (meaning balance-wise there's almost no reason not to dump your Dex and then throw Heavy Armor 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 because there's nothing that really punishes you from moving around all the time when attacking and even if you dump your Dexterity you generally still have more than enough Stride to outrun monsters for a little bit (except for the faster ones, I'm sure). It has a LOT of issues that the original version of the game (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) didn't have because the original mechanics were actually designed to operate in the format they were created for, and they still are but have just been kind of tossed into the Turn-Based Mode without much consideration.

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. I don't know where you got this impression that Deadfire is somehow not a balanced game, there was certainly a problem with difficulty for a while, but on a mechanical level Deadfire has always been exceptionally well polished and thoughtfully designed, with a perfect balance between clarity and depth. And in terms of buildcraft, you could pick basically anything and make it viable as long as you had a basic understanding of the mechanics.

I'm not saying you're wrong that TBM can be fun, because as I said earlier it benefits from many of Deadfire's strengths. It still has the really awesome Afflictions/Inspiration system, and I like how TBM plays up elements of combat like the Interruption/Concentration system (and other such nuanced factors) because you really have the time to buckle down and consider your moves. I also don't mind if you prefer it due to just generally enjoying the format a little better. But it's a tad (and that's an understatement) ridiculous to suggest that it hasn't broken the vanilla game's mechanics on a fundamental level. And no it's not simply a "new meta", Turn-Based is provably a shallower, less balanced, more unpolished, and significantly worse version of the game. 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, especially if you've ever even touched other far more polished and well-considered Turn-Based systems like Divinity or XCOM. It's an alternative, one that may be more fun for a certain type of audience, but it is in no way an improvement (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, which is something that never happens in real-time and thus greatly mystifies me... and have you tried Galawain's Challenge? Man those enemies do not seem to be aware of their bonuses).

PS: Couldn't find somewhere to fit this, but 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. But the way the mode works also makes those individual actions less significant. It's much easier to miss AOEs without the ability to retarget them, attacks are less effective and deal less damage over time because you output so much fewer of them with the dexterity changes, and 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.

PSS: 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). TBM makes combat encounters more than five times longer on average from what I can tell, and even worse it reduces the importance of resource management. Whereas in RT when your abilities were all gone, the fight would be almost over, in TBM the fight's still in full swing. There's a construct encounter in that cave which took me more than 30 minutes, and 80% of the fight was spent flank killing the one dude (with only basic attacks) because he has so much health and you do so little damage. That fight takes maybe 5 minutes at most in RTWP, and he's much easier to cleave through because he's so slow that you can get out nearly five attacks by the time he outputs one, but TBM puts enemies designed like that onto an even playing field they weren't designed for and it creates extreme tedium. I literally cannot imagine trying to beat the whole game on TBM, I imagine it's already 60-100 hours long with the DLCs, and I'm sure just by the virtue of playing TBM you'd more than double that playtime due to just how long combat takes (and that's probably underselling it as far as I'm concerned).

TLDR: No, it still feels very, very tacked on. Which is not to suggest the devs didn't put a lot of work onto it, but that it was stapled onto the existing game in an inefficient way despite not being a good fit.

PSSS: btw I just want to make clear that I'm also glad the mode exists, but you are greatly understating the depth of its incredible number of very problematic issues, and greatly overstating the original games flaws in comparison.

> 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:

Quote

 

 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.

 

 

[Devoted: Chromoprismatic Quarterstaff]

On 5/2/2019 at 10:17 PM, Boeroer said:

But - there is no battlefield in Pillars games (except maybe Yenwood Field). This is not a battlefield simulation with uniform weapons, horses and formations. It's adventuring. If you are a Rogue and learned how to use daggers but not spears - and then a tavern fight starts - why would you pull out a spear? Because you wouldn't.

There will always be situations in the life of an adventurer where a dagger is the best option. But I don't expect an RPG to simulate such situations in detail. It's ok to just balance out the weapons in general to make everybody happy.

Exactly.

[Devoted: Chromoprismatic Quarterstaff]

On 5/2/2019 at 6:46 PM, AeonsLegend said:

No I'm also saying daggers aren't effective in any type of combat situation because of their short reach. 2 people fighting with equal skill one wielding a sword and one wielding a dagger then the one wielding the sword will always win. And one wielding a spear would win over someone with a dagger as well. There is no combat situation I can imagine that a person wielding a dagger would have an advantage over a person wielding a weapon with superior range. Unless the guy is sneaking up on his enemy and stabbing him from behind.

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

[how is TB mode after patc 5?]

8 hours ago, Jayd said:

This is what I assumed turn-based was when I heard about it. I replayed Blue Dragon not long ago and action speed was extremely important in that turn-based combat. It also allows the interrupt system to translate without a problem. Question: how do interrupts work in Deadfire's TB mode? If everyone does an action each turn how can there be interrupts?

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.

[how is TB mode after patc 5?]

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.

1. 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.
2. Battles definitely require more patience, and it sometimes gets a little tedious waiting for enemies to take their turn.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

[[Turn-Based] Modal Abilities With Action Speed Penalties]

On 5/10/2019 at 6:17 PM, JackalTornMoons said:

One thing to note is that any modal that gives accuracy, deflection, and/or penetration doesn't stack with buffs that give the same.

 

Also, using the arbalest modal to prone an already stunned/paralyzed enemy sometimes extends the stun/paralyze for an extra turn.  This may have been fixed in 5.0; I haven't really had the chance to boot up the game since the patch.

 

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?

[[Turn-Based] Modal Abilities With Action Speed Penalties]

17 minutes ago, MaxQuest said:

Yeap, quite so.

Dex also adds 4% to Stride since v4.1.2, in TB, and although that's a smaller bonus compared to +3% action speed in RTwP, it is here to stay, because:  

 

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.

[[Turn-Based] Modal Abilities With Action Speed Penalties]

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.

 

 

[Turn based POTD party composition]

Well, there were barely any changes anyway

[Turn-Based Dual-Wielding vs 2H?]

39 minutes ago, Kirschkern said:

Thats why they introduced a -35% damage penatly to dualwield in turn based mode.

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

[Turn-Based Dual-Wielding vs 2H?]

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?

[Relentless Storm Turn-Based Nerf]

Quote

Relentless Storm in turn-based mode will now Daze by default, and its Daze attacks that critically hit will upgrade to Stuns.

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?

[Few questions about builds]

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.

[Turn based POTD party composition]

On 5/7/2019 at 3:40 PM, Boeroer said:

There will be changes in TB mode. It's impossible to predict which classes and strategies will work out best and which not. 

Not anymore!

[Patch Notes for 5.0.0]

56 minutes ago, Novem said:

Well I'm still not entirely sure how it works, but because duration is measured by rounds, the "ability duration" aspect of Int only seems to be effective if you can hit the break point to make an effect last another round (which takes about 20+ for most abilities). It doesn't seem to be able to make an ability last partially into the next round from what I can tell, and so anyone who doesn't use a lot of AOEs doesn't really need it.

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.