Frustrated by the game design

[protopersona]

 

 

 

create seperate mechanic which would obvious cause more bug opportunities and make multiclassing more problematic, is... pointless.  other than a slavish devotion to d&d norms, am seeing no reason for inserting a separate mechanic for spells.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Maybe unifying spells and attacks shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Diablo 3 did push magic closer to weapons - Want to cast powerful spells? Equip a huge weapon!

Path of Exile didn't. Path of Exile defeated Diablo 3.

Perhaps bringing magic and weapons closer isn't the way to go.

 

Path defeated Diablo 3? In what way? Cause I have my doubts that Path made more money, which is the only metric that ultimately matters.

 

It's a better game of that type. I imagine some people like, i dunno, players, care about that.

 

That's rather subjective. I enjoyed Diablo 3 way more that Path. Too much grinding, drops way too much trash loot, and too many trap choices that are far more difficult to correct than it needs to be. Personally I'm enjoying Grim Dawn now.

[Bleak]

So if I understand correctly, the major complaint Bleak has about the magic system in PoE is that magic should feel important. That every cast should do something with a measurable impact and never have a chance to just miss. See, to me that makes casters more important than martial classes. Casters would have a built in guarantee that they will be effective, whereas martial classes would have to be built around being effective and closing up their limitations. My first question under that line of thinking would be "Other than a tank why would I ever want to take a martial class over a caster?"

 

Guaranteed accuracy and all or nothing defense rolls are fine in a PnP setting. The DM (ideally) is there to ensure that even if the dice send things off the rails they can still bring things back on track and let the players have a good experience. The DM also ensures that the players don't have the option to just rest after every fight, forcing casters to ration out their resources. In a video game though, where a mindless computer is running things? I just feels swingy and unbalanced. There were lots of situations in the BG games where a single saving throw meant I might as well reload my save because I was going to lose. It also made me feel like if I wasn't resting often I was just wasting potential. Regardless of whether I liked all of that, I'd be an idiot to not have casters because of how stupidly powerful they became over martial classes.

 

Personally I like that casters are not inherently better than more mundane options. I like that they need to actually aim things just like the rest of us mortals. I like that magic is just one flavor for dealing with the game's challenges. I especially like that I'm not penalized if I choose to say **** it, magic can go to hell, all martial party here I come!

 

Obsidian's focus in this series seems to have been on trying to make everything viable without any choice overshadowing another. It's a hard line to balance, and they could still tweak it in places. In the end I think it's a much better goal than sticking with tradition.

 

I have to question if casters are truly as weak as you make them out to be Bleak. Honestly my first instinct is a bit of confirmation bias combined with a resistance to shoring up the character's accuracy needs. Yeah, PotD is hard with tons of inflated defenses. If you're having a single character debuff defenses and cast nukes in a party setting I don't see that as a good use of party synergy.

 

If you're trying to play solo, well solo reinforces cheese tactics because it's not the way the devs intend for the game to be played. They don't take away the option for it, but they aren't balancing the game around it either.

 

P:K did a good job with the resting system. Resting is a risk because enemies ambush you while you are sleeping, needs supplies which you can't carry in abundance even with multiple bags of holding because of the encumbrance system and is frequently when travelling on world map because of fatigue. I found myself having to plan the use of my spellcasting resources throughout a dungeon. The whole thing supports RP immensely. DF with woedica's challenge was much more preferable to me - still too easy to make infinite prepared meals though.

 

Were casters in DnD or PF (which has the most solid version of DnD imo), inherently better than martial classes? Perhaps, in many situations. But there was never a problem of them overshadowing the rest of the classes. Perfect balance isn't needed in a single player game anyway, as long as all choices are viable+. And from my experience these games always compelled me to go with a full party with a variety of classes. 

 

Having multiple casters in a party can make things actually harder until the late game on potd. Yes there are a lot of combinations that can beat enemies, but they are so easily broken and most involve casters being just a support to the instant damage dealing abilities of martial classes that also can take a punch or involve wizards becoming melee killing machines themselves (which are their best spells tbh). The main reason I would go for a martial class is their damage dealing reliability in long fights (most fights are long in potd) - and it's not like martial classes don't have debuffs too.

 

In the end, don't forget that spell accuracy (miss/graze) is only a problem combined with the abysmal casting times, minor defenses and limited resources a caster has. And yes potd defenses and hp are inflated but that doesn't excuse anything. 

 

am dismissing as "imaginary" 'cause it is not gromnir's experience using even mediocre built aloth on potd.  am dismissing as imaginary 'cause almost nobody save you is having same problem.  am dismissing as imaginary 'cause when developers speak o' frustrations o' players via twitch and message board feedback, of all the possible stuff which comes up, caster accuracy is not one.  has been noted via multiple asides in twitches how developers feel play w/o a wizard is a kinda self handicapping... is a way to make playthrough a bit tougher.  am not gonna simple cave to popular feedback on issues particular as this board is less than representative o' the average deadfire gamer, but if pretty much everybody posting shares an opinion, then we gotta at least consider the possibility o' a general feels argument with much support.  add on developer and our own extensive personal experience, and am further inclined to recognize your observation for what it is: imaginary.  

 

as an aside, we will note how given developer changes and our own increased meta knowledge, we have been able to get companions other than aloth to produce near equal big damage numbers as the wizard.  maia example, were initial a bit o' a disappointment for us when we played deadfire.  for a dps character, she weren't doing fantastic dps.  obsidian altered the ranger class post release and we discovered perfect gear loadouts to make her more effective so now she is doing fantastic damage, but am still using aloth as kinda a benchmark for efficacy.  heck, have found our self underutilizing aloth empowers as it feels like overkill in most encounters. even so, with meta knowledge, aloth has stood out less from the rest o' the companions insofar as efficacy is concerned, which am s'possing is actual unfair to aloth.  haven't spent near as much effort attempting to optimize a pure deadfire arcane caster as such seems like kinda a default setting.  

 

"What I despise most in the PoE system is that spells go through the same resolution as attacks do."

 

change basic maths all characters current use is indeed creating a new system. you are clear calling for more than a simple buff and have pointed to the d&d system as a example o' such done right. 

 

so, give an actual example o' a new attack resolution for casters, and be specific so we may see how easy such would be to add to deadfire.  if is difficult to imagine easy, then is probable not easy.  if the problem were low level casting accuracy for wizards, would be ez to imagine adding an inherent accuracy buff to low-level spells and/or low-level casters. specific buff numbers would be subject to argument (and is indeed wholly unnecessary) but figure out how to implement a flat accuracy buff to casters and or specific spells would not require much mental gymnastics.  so, do similar and be specific with your call for alternative attack resolution.  show us how we were being hyperbolic with a concrete example which would not be difficult to implement and would not muck up multiclass. 

 

will wait.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am not understanding your armour example.  in deadfire, adding an integrated and secondary armour mechanic is what many in this thread is complaining 'bout.  penetration.  poe dr were complained 'bout by enough fans such that obsidian made a change, but instead o' making a change to dr, obsidian instead added the penetration mechanic which, particular in the beta, had potential to largely nullify weapon or spell damage.  buffing accuracy had negligible impact on penetration and there were exceeding few deadfire options for increasing penetration or decreasing armour. now admitted, penetration is indeed integrated into deadfire attack resolutions, and is modified by crits and grazes... although grazes were exceeding rare in initial deadfire release, seeming only available through specific talents or through a singular priestly spell. 

 

yeah, am actual stretching to make penetration into a genuine separate mechanic, but such is illustrative o' just how difficult your task in coming up with a seperate caster mechanic will be. penetration were an initial bust and has taken substantial efforts by developers to make it less bad. so, is now your turn-- come up with genuine unique, insular and discrete mechanic for casting which avoids problems with multiclassing and is better than were obsidian penetration efforts and nevertheless still works w/i deadfire overall system.

 

I am not convinced that I am the only person who has this problem based on the anecdotal evidence you invoke. On this page alone, I am not. And there are plenty of threads of people complaining about casters - just google. But let's assume it is not a popular issue - I won't argue with that, there's no point anyway. 

 

First of all it's not my place to "invent" mechanics - neither do I get paid for it, to involve myself enough in it, nor do my potential solutions have much chance into being noticed, much less implemented. So not much point in devoting time for it. My optional job as a customer is to give feedback about my experience with the game though, which is what I am doing.

 

But I'll humor you with a random example - say spells just couldn't miss. Spells grazing is enough of a penalty imo so perception will still be valuable because debuff durations are crippled and penetration is still a factor for the final damage roll. Will/reflex/fort can still control "broken" debuffs.

 

PS: My example was just referring to having a lot of different types of armor in the game, as we do now, instead of an imaginary "global" armor that applies to all spells and attacks, like it happens with attack resolution. From my understanding (without having read the whole thread) the most common gripe about penetration is just how it scales vs armor.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Bleak

[Bleak]

That's rather subjective. I enjoyed Diablo 3 way more that Path. Too much grinding, drops way too much trash loot, and too many trap choices that are far more difficult to correct than it needs to be. Personally I'm enjoying Grim Dawn now.

 

 

You enjoyed D3 way more than Path...? Seriously? That doesn't quite compute even with tastes being subjective and all that xD 

Did you give it enough of a chance?

Edited January 6, 2019 by Bleak

[Gromnir]

 

I am not convinced that I am the only person who has this problem based on the anecdotal evidence you invoke. On this page alone, I am not. And there are plenty of threads of people complaining about casters - just google. But let's assume it is not a popular issue - I won't argue with that, there's no point anyway. 

 

First of all it's not my place to "invent" mechanics - neither do I get paid for it, to involve myself enough in it, nor do my potential solutions have much chance into being noticed, much less implemented. So not much point in devoting time for it. My optional job as a customer is to give feedback about my experience with the game though, which is what I am doing.

 

But I'll humor you with a random example - say spells just couldn't miss. Spells grazing is enough of a penalty imo so perception will still be valuable because debuff durations are crippled and penetration is still a factor for the final damage roll.

 

PS: My example was just referring to having a lot of different types of armor in the game, as we do now, instead of an imaginary "global" armor that applies to all spells and attacks, like it happens with attack resolution. From my understanding (without having read the whole thread) the most common gripe about penetration is just how it scales vs armor.

 

automatic graze is not a new mechanic.  is silly and broken as it would magnify the usefulness o' ccs and debuffs, particular with high int casters, but is nothing new.  

 

and your armour comment makes no sense, if am understanding.   deadfire armour types is nothing but labels.  armour provides ar and recovery penalty.  mechanics for armour is unified. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[the_dog_days]

Pillars armors already has different types of AR for different damages, but if you're talking about splitting physical and magical armor like DOS2, please no. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by the_dog_days

[Bleak]

 

 

I am not convinced that I am the only person who has this problem based on the anecdotal evidence you invoke. On this page alone, I am not. And there are plenty of threads of people complaining about casters - just google. But let's assume it is not a popular issue - I won't argue with that, there's no point anyway. 

 

First of all it's not my place to "invent" mechanics - neither do I get paid for it, to involve myself enough in it, nor do my potential solutions have much chance into being noticed, much less implemented. So not much point in devoting time for it. My optional job as a customer is to give feedback about my experience with the game though, which is what I am doing.

 

But I'll humor you with a random example - say spells just couldn't miss. Spells grazing is enough of a penalty imo so perception will still be valuable because debuff durations are crippled and penetration is still a factor for the final damage roll.

 

PS: My example was just referring to having a lot of different types of armor in the game, as we do now, instead of an imaginary "global" armor that applies to all spells and attacks, like it happens with attack resolution. From my understanding (without having read the whole thread) the most common gripe about penetration is just how it scales vs armor.

 

automatic graze is not a new mechanic.  is silly and broken as it would magnify the usefulness o' ccs and debuffs, particular with high int casters, but is nothing new.  

 

and your armour comment makes no sense, if am understanding.   deadfire armour types is nothing but labels.  armour provides ar and recovery penalty.  mechanics for armour is unified. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

But you got hang up on a new mechanic, my point is that the attack resolution should be different. A new mechanic is not necessary for that.

 

It doesn't have to magnify the usefulness of ccs and debuffs, as long as there are proper will/reflex/fortitude defenses in place. It will just guarantee that all that casting won't be for absolutely nothing. 

 

What do you mean that armor is nothing but labels? Doesn't my Effigy's husk for example increase my slash armor by extra 3 points specifically? Don't enemies have variable ratings of each type of armor? 

 

Pillars armors already has different types of AR for different damages, but if you're talking about splitting physical and magical armor like DOS2, please no.  

 

 

Nope, not talking about that. DOS2's system was great though overall. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by Bleak

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

Were casters in DnD or PF (which has the most solid version of DnD imo), inherently better than martial classes? Perhaps, in many situations. But there was never a problem of them overshadowing the rest of the classes.

 

i did a search for 'pathfinder tier list' and this was the first thing that came up.

 

quoted below:

 

The primary maxims of 3.5e remain true: magic dominates everything, the more and higher-level magic you have, the better off you are. Magic is both powerful and flexible, allowing magical classes to be strictly-superior to non-magical classes in many cases.

 

If anything, Pathfinder actually made balance worse: nerfs to combat feats, and the distinct lack of better combat feats, which 3.5e published in supplements and Pathfinder never did, hurt mundane characters dramatically. And spellcasters received new class features, some of them very powerful, plus powerful new spells (e.g. paragon surge, emergency force sphere). There were some scattered nerfs to some core spells, but many are unchanged from 3.5e and still overpowered.

 

like i dont know pathfinder as well as some folk, but ive got enough experience with ad&d and 3.x that this wasnt a surprise. primacy of casters in that system has been a meme for as long as i can remember. arguing against it is... well it aint a challenge id want to take up, and i aint short of contrary tendencies.

 

It doesn't have to magnify the usefulness of ccs and debuffs, as long as there are proper will/reflex/fortitude defenses in place. It will just guarantee that all that casting won't be for absolutely nothing. 

 

there are plenty of high level spells in d&d that can be ignored on a successful save, and due to d&d crit mechanics u got a flat 5% chance of failure thanks to possibility of even weakest foe rolling natural 20, thats not even taking into account things like improved evasion, slippery mind, epic resilience, and whatever contingencies an enemy mage might have prepared. there are also plenty of resistances not readily telegraphed. u could chuck out wail of the banshee only to find out ur targets packing a ring of death ward.

 

like ur saying poe's spell casting is too unreliable and should be shifted in line with a system that is... *more* random and unforgiving? i dont get it. part of the fun of d&d is that every attempt at something is anxiety-inducing, rather than a given, and u get to laugh at that one sucker who keeps rolling under 5 on a d20.

[Gromnir]

But you got hang up on a new mechanic, my point is that the attack resolution should be different. A new mechanic is not necessary for that.

 

 

 

It doesn't have to magnify the usefulness of ccs and debuffs, as long as there are proper will/reflex/fortitude defenses in place. It will just guarantee that all that casting won't be for absolutely nothing. 

 

What do you mean that armor is nothing but labels? Doesn't my Effigy's husk for example increase my slash armor by extra 3 points specifically? Don't enemies have variable ratings of each type of armor? 

 

 

 

 

not our hangup.  however, if you have finally realized how silly were separate mechanic nonsense, am pleased. if you wanna talk only 'bout buffs or nerfs to already existing mechanics instead o' new and different mechanic, then am relieved you have seen the light. inching towards daylight? congrats.

 

and yeah, automatic grazes will vast increase effectiveness o' debuffs and cc.  durations is reduced 50% on a graze, which may still result in extreme debilitating debuffs lingering with a high int caster. poe were actual offering kinda the best example o' this wackiness.  petrification were op.  solo rogues were able to quick kill the adra dragon 'cause they only needed get a graze on their petrification traps to easily kill the beastie.  a graze debuff is still a debuff, which then makes subsequent debuffs attacks more likely to hit and crit.

 

inability to generate enough accuracy to overcome defenses is what current  leads to a graze as 'posed to a hit.  a graze occurs on an attack targeting appropriate defenses 'tween 25 and 50.  so now graze occurs 0-50 for wizards spells? is your serious suggestion?  will/fort/ref is simple three o' the defenses.  change defense numbers how?  to make hits and crits even more difficult? 

 

as for armour

 

seasonal example:

 

create jakob mantova's robe of chains as a new armour.  a vallian merchant known for unscrupulous business practices used his entire accumulated family wealth to acquire the services o' an animancer who would extend his life beyond death.  berath intervened and now jakob is cursed to an existence trapped between rymrgand's realm during the day and eora at night.  during nighttime hours, mantova, appearing as a horrific fampyr dressed in a robe of rattling chains, haunts the living members o' his family, warning them o' the dangers o' unfettered acquisition o' wealth.

 

"business?" cries the undead thing, wringing its hands. "mankind was my business. the common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. the dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" 

 

if released from his torment, jakob will disappear leaving only his robe of chains as evidence of his passing.

 

robe of rattling chains: excellent armour with base ar 12  and lightning ar 8.  +55% recovery penalty.  1x per rest grants barring death's door.  1 per encounter it will cast chill fog centered on the wearer when hit by a crit. 10 penalty to any stealth checks made by the wearer as the robe's noise is not only physical but spiritual in nature and may be heard even by those who are deafened.

 

call it a robe.  give it a robe appearance.  doesn't matter.  armour has basic qualities removed from type.  same basic maths.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Bleak]

 

Were casters in DnD or PF (which has the most solid version of DnD imo), inherently better than martial classes? Perhaps, in many situations. But there was never a problem of them overshadowing the rest of the classes.

 

i did a search for 'pathfinder tier list' and this was the first thing that came up.

 

quoted below:

 

The primary maxims of 3.5e remain true: magic dominates everything, the more and higher-level magic you have, the better off you are. Magic is both powerful and flexible, allowing magical classes to be strictly-superior to non-magical classes in many cases.

 

If anything, Pathfinder actually made balance worse: nerfs to combat feats, and the distinct lack of better combat feats, which 3.5e published in supplements and Pathfinder never did, hurt mundane characters dramatically. And spellcasters received new class features, some of them very powerful, plus powerful new spells (e.g. paragon surge, emergency force sphere). There were some scattered nerfs to some core spells, but many are unchanged from 3.5e and still overpowered.

 

like i dont know pathfinder as well as some folk, but ive got enough experience with ad&d and 3.x that this wasnt a surprise. primacy of casters in that system has been a meme for as long as i can remember. arguing against it is... well it aint a challenge id want to take up, and i aint short of contrary tendencies.

 

It doesn't have to magnify the usefulness of ccs and debuffs, as long as there are proper will/reflex/fortitude defenses in place. It will just guarantee that all that casting won't be for absolutely nothing. 

 

there are plenty of high level spells in d&d that can be ignored on a successful save, and due to d&d crit mechanics u got a flat 5% chance of failure thanks to possibility of even weakest foe rolling natural 20, thats not even taking into account things like improved evasion, slippery mind, epic resilience, and whatever contingencies an enemy mage might have prepared. there are also plenty of resistances not readily telegraphed. u could chuck out wail of the banshee only to find out ur targets packing a ring of death ward.

 

like ur saying poe's spell casting is too unreliable and should be shifted in line with a system that is... *more* random and unforgiving? i dont get it. part of the fun of d&d is that every attempt at something is anxiety-inducing, rather than a given, and u get to laugh at that one sucker who keeps rolling under 5 on a d20.

 

 

So what about the tiers? Are you hung up on the "perfect balance" as well? This is not an mmo guys, but a game about RP. Why don't you check out the P:K builds and see that there are plenty of builds for every class - no class is overshadowed gameplay-wise. 

 

Most spells are only partially resisted - wotb is a instant killing spell and these spells have a trade off - they are pretty likely to be completely resisted. That's like one school of spells. In P:K most of these spells also have a damage which will happen even if it gets resisted. And what is your point that a rare piece of gear could negate it?

 

If anything, PoE's spell casting is more reliably... useless, with greater casting times, expendable concetration and weak spells. A spell graze cripples a spell and on most occasions is worse than an enemy succeeding at a saving throw - not to mention that enemy saving throws are far more forgiving than defenses on high level enemies or that spells actually have meaningful damage numbers.  Here are the forgiving and not-random-at-all PoE percentages...

 

So you might want to decide what the case is about spell-casting classes. If they were so "unreliable and unforgiving" in DnD, why are they "tier 1"?

 

 

 

But you got hang up on a new mechanic, my point is that the attack resolution should be different. A new mechanic is not necessary for that.

 

 

 

It doesn't have to magnify the usefulness of ccs and debuffs, as long as there are proper will/reflex/fortitude defenses in place. It will just guarantee that all that casting won't be for absolutely nothing. 

 

What do you mean that armor is nothing but labels? Doesn't my Effigy's husk for example increase my slash armor by extra 3 points specifically? Don't enemies have variable ratings of each type of armor? 

 

 

 

 

not our hangup.  however, if you have finally realized how silly were separate mechanic nonsense, am pleased. if you wanna talk only 'bout buffs or nerfs to already existing mechanics instead o' new and different mechanic, then am relieved you have seen the light. inching towards daylight? congrats.

 

and yeah, automatic grazes will vast increase effectiveness o' debuffs and cc.  durations is reduced 50% on a graze, which may still result in extreme debilitating debuffs lingering with a high int caster. poe were actual offering kinda the best example o' this wackiness.  petrification were op.  solo rogues were able to quick kill the adra dragon 'cause they only needed get a graze on their petrification traps to easily kill the beastie.  a graze debuff is still a debuff, which then makes subsequent debuffs attacks more likely to hit and crit.

 

inability to generate enough accuracy to overcome defenses is what current  leads to a graze as 'posed to a hit.  a graze occurs on an attack targeting appropriate defenses 'tween 25 and 50.  so now graze occurs 0-50 for wizards spells? is your serious suggestion?  will/fort/ref is simple three o' the defenses.  change defense numbers how?  to make hits and crits even more difficult? 

 

as for armour

 

seasonal example:

 

create jakob mantova's robe of chains as a new armour.  a vallian merchant known for unscrupulous business practices used his entire accumulated family wealth to acquire the services o' an animancer who would extend his life beyond death.  berath intervened and now jakob is cursed to an existence trapped between rymrgand's realm during the day and eora at night.  during nighttime hours, mantova, appearing as a horrific fampyr dressed in a robe of rattling chains, haunts the living members o' his family, warning them o' the dangers o' unfettered acquisition o' wealth.

 

"business?" cries the undead thing, wringing its hands. "mankind was my business. the common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. the dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!" 

 

if released from his torment, jakob will disappear leaving only his robe of chains as evidence of his passing.

 

robe of rattling chains: excellent armour with base ar 12  and lightning ar 8.  +55% recovery penalty.  1x per rest grants barring death's door.  1 per encounter it will cast chill fog centered on the wearer when hit by a crit. 10 penalty to any stealth checks made by the wearer as the robe's noise is not only physical but spiritual in nature and may be heard even by those who are deafened.

 

call it a robe.  give it a robe appearance.  doesn't matter.  armour has basic qualities removed from type.  same basic maths.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

You were the one hung up onto "new systems and mechanics" in the first place. I only said that there should be a differentiation in spells and attacks when it comes to attack resolution that will reflect all the disadvantages a caster has (huge casting times, limited resources, low defenses). I don't really care how that happens, but if you feel better by believing you somehow... uh... guided me into the daylight, as you say, I'll be happy to oblige. 

 

As I said before, it's not like I get paid for this to devote time to come up with a good and structured solution (aka it's not my job), so you might be able to tell if that is my "serious" suggestion. Telling a forum member that gives feedback "if you don't like it, you have to say how you would do it better" is silly at best in the first place. My feedback is that allowing limited resources on squishy characters that take so long to cast, just miss (and they do so pretty often on early mid game), makes for the most unenjoyable casters I've played in a crpg (even in their late game their best spells are the martial spells). How they handle this piece of feedback, if they choose to handle it or see it, is clearly the developers' job. 

 

I never said that other types of armor use different maths - I merely said that there are plenty of types of armor for different types of damage.  

Edited January 6, 2019 by Bleak

[Gromnir]

you specific compared d&d saving throws to poe/deadfire miss/graze/hit/crit mechanic as an example o' what you meant by differentiated system, but again, if you have given up on such silliness, then progress has been made.  if we are simple fine tuning deadfire to get to point where players is seeing arcane casters as effective and even potent, then am pretty sure such has already been achieved.

 

as for armour, am not seeing a point.  again, you were using to identify a difference, and deadfire attacks is already resolved with multiple defenses. is not actual a differentiation in mechanics. point out burn v. pierce armour is not mechanical different in any meaningful sense, and clear ain't analogous to d&d saving throw v. thac0.  are you asking for a special wizard-specific defense?  deflection/fort/ref/wil/wiz?  wouldn't call such a new mechanic.  would call it unnecessary, but...

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 6, 2019 by Gromnir

[Bleak]

you specific compared d&d saving throws to poe/deadfire miss/graze/hit/crit mechanic as an example o' what you meant by differentiated system, but again, if you have given up on such silliness, then progress has been made.  if we are simple fine tuning deadfire to get to point where players is seeing arcane casters as effective and even potent, then am pretty sure such has already been achieved.

 

as for armour, am not seeing a point.  again, you were using to identify a difference, and deadfire attacks is already resolved with multiple defenses. is not actual a differentiation in mechanics. point out burn v. pierce armour is not mechanical different in any meaningful sense, and clear ain't analogous to d&d saving throw v. thac0.  are you asking for a special wizard-specific defense?  deflection/fort/ref/wil/wiz?  wouldn't call such a new mechanic.  would call it unnecessary, but...

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Given my feedback about casters, you do understand that I think that this has not already been achieved, right? If you think otherwise, I can't really change your opinion.

 

I just used armor as an example of differentiated defenses, in the sense that attack resolution can be differentiated as well for spells. Again, it doesn't have to be a new mechanic, it just has to be a differentiation than reflects all the actual differences a spell vs an attack has. Limit of uses, casting times etc. 

[Verde]

 

What I despise most in the PoE system is that spells go through the same resolution as attacks do. Early-mid casters feel like crap to play, summons are terrible, damage spells feel like a weak aoe attack that casually misses even if they are limited per combat - only CCs are somewhat worth it but I found that it is better using a different setup in the first place.

Early-mid casters suck, now that's new! Never has it happened before in any game ever! =P

Tell that to the BG1 wolf!

Edited January 6, 2019 by Verde

[Franknstein]

 

 

What I despise most in the PoE system is that spells go through the same resolution as attacks do. Early-mid casters feel like crap to play, summons are terrible, damage spells feel like a weak aoe attack that casually misses even if they are limited per combat - only CCs are somewhat worth it but I found that it is better using a different setup in the first place.

Early-mid casters suck, now that's new! Never has it happened before in any game ever! =P

Tell that to the BG1 wolf!

Once the ungodly power of "sleep" has been unleashed the darts would do the talking!!!

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

So you might want to decide what the case is about spell-casting classes. If they were so "unreliable and unforgiving" in DnD, why are they "tier 1"?

 

prob cos martial classes are subject to same rng, but when they pass roll against target, they remove one layer of stoneskin - or maybe do 2d6+14 damage

 

Meanwhile, when casters pass roll they destroy entire village, open portal to baator, invoke divine intervention or trap someone in rocky prison several hundred feet underground forever. or as a party trick, make ur thief redundant.

 

So what about the tiers? Are you hung up on the "perfect balance" as well?

 

hey, ur the one bleating that casters need reshaping to complete ur jigsaw. im pretty chill. at the very least, i have no great fear of the dreaded balance demon that stalks the halls of rpgs ruining everyones fun. at least he clears broken glass off the dancefloor.

 

wizards are already strong. im just unconvinced that making them op and arbitrarily changing their resolution roll for aesthetic reasons will do anything to improve game.

[Boeroer]

Amen

[Ensign]

You enjoyed D3 way more than Path...? Seriously? That doesn't quite compute even with tastes being subjective and all that xD

Did you give it enough of a chance?

Path makes its money off of a *very* good itemization system for its genre and a clever economic system to supplement it. It also has an excessively complicated character build system that, while not great design in a vacuum, does some smart things that crucially work well with their core itemization and reward loops.

 

On the other hand, its gameplay is trash. The industry has gotten way better at this but Path's gameplay would have been amateurish even 20 years ago.

 

The D3 vs Path is a really interesting case because D3 failed so hard on its itemization and economy that they had to totally reboot the game to try and save it. It was a shame, because so many other elements of D3 just dunk on Path so hard, but in that genre itemization and reward loops *are* the game, and where Path nailed it D3 sh*t the bed.

[protopersona]

 

You enjoyed D3 way more than Path...? Seriously? That doesn't quite compute even with tastes being subjective and all that xD

Did you give it enough of a chance?

Path makes its money off of a *very* good itemization system for its genre and a clever economic system to supplement it. It also has an excessively complicated character build system that, while not great design in a vacuum, does some smart things that crucially work well with their core itemization and reward loops.

 

On the other hand, its gameplay is trash. The industry has gotten way better at this but Path's gameplay would have been amateurish even 20 years ago.

 

The D3 vs Path is a really interesting case because D3 failed so hard on its itemization and economy that they had to totally reboot the game to try and save it. It was a shame, because so many other elements of D3 just dunk on Path so hard, but in that genre itemization and reward loops *are* the game, and where Path nailed it D3 sh*t the bed.

 

And I never played the original, I only came in after the reboot. After the auction house was gone the game was rebalanced and became a lot of fun to play in my opinion. Only with the endless pursuit of higher greater rift levels did the game become boring for me. 

 

 

 

 

Were casters in DnD or PF (which has the most solid version of DnD imo), inherently better than martial classes? Perhaps, in many situations. But there was never a problem of them overshadowing the rest of the classes.

 

i did a search for 'pathfinder tier list' and this was the first thing that came up.

 

quoted below:

 

The primary maxims of 3.5e remain true: magic dominates everything, the more and higher-level magic you have, the better off you are. Magic is both powerful and flexible, allowing magical classes to be strictly-superior to non-magical classes in many cases.

 

If anything, Pathfinder actually made balance worse: nerfs to combat feats, and the distinct lack of better combat feats, which 3.5e published in supplements and Pathfinder never did, hurt mundane characters dramatically. And spellcasters received new class features, some of them very powerful, plus powerful new spells (e.g. paragon surge, emergency force sphere). There were some scattered nerfs to some core spells, but many are unchanged from 3.5e and still overpowered.

 

like i dont know pathfinder as well as some folk, but ive got enough experience with ad&d and 3.x that this wasnt a surprise. primacy of casters in that system has been a meme for as long as i can remember. arguing against it is... well it aint a challenge id want to take up, and i aint short of contrary tendencies.

 

It doesn't have to magnify the usefulness of ccs and debuffs, as long as there are proper will/reflex/fortitude defenses in place. It will just guarantee that all that casting won't be for absolutely nothing. 

 

there are plenty of high level spells in d&d that can be ignored on a successful save, and due to d&d crit mechanics u got a flat 5% chance of failure thanks to possibility of even weakest foe rolling natural 20, thats not even taking into account things like improved evasion, slippery mind, epic resilience, and whatever contingencies an enemy mage might have prepared. there are also plenty of resistances not readily telegraphed. u could chuck out wail of the banshee only to find out ur targets packing a ring of death ward.

 

like ur saying poe's spell casting is too unreliable and should be shifted in line with a system that is... *more* random and unforgiving? i dont get it. part of the fun of d&d is that every attempt at something is anxiety-inducing, rather than a given, and u get to laugh at that one sucker who keeps rolling under 5 on a d20.

 

 

So what about the tiers? Are you hung up on the "perfect balance" as well? This is not an mmo guys, but a game about RP. Why don't you check out the P:K builds and see that there are plenty of builds for every class - no class is overshadowed gameplay-wise. 

 

Most spells are only partially resisted - wotb is a instant killing spell and these spells have a trade off - they are pretty likely to be completely resisted. That's like one school of spells. In P:K most of these spells also have a damage which will happen even if it gets resisted. And what is your point that a rare piece of gear could negate it?

 

If anything, PoE's spell casting is more reliably... useless, with greater casting times, expendable concetration and weak spells. A spell graze cripples a spell and on most occasions is worse than an enemy succeeding at a saving throw - not to mention that enemy saving throws are far more forgiving than defenses on high level enemies or that spells actually have meaningful damage numbers.  Here are the forgiving and not-random-at-all PoE percentages...

 

So you might want to decide what the case is about spell-casting classes. If they were so "unreliable and unforgiving" in DnD, why are they "tier 1"?

Ah, now we've gotten to the core of things. You don't care if other classes feel like a subjective waste of space, you don't care about if non-caster classes are viable. You just want magic to be the overpowered empowerment fantasy you're used to. To hell with game balance, roleplaying a demi-god is way more important. /s

 

Look, you want to die on the hill that magic needs to feel amazingly powerful, be my guest. You need your empowerment fantasy, then go for it. Go play the game that gives you that, cause this game isn't it, and I'm glad it's not.

 

Personally I prefer MMO style balance. I prefer that I don't have to regret that I chose something because it looked interesting, but takes forever to kill anything because the game had to take into account the almost godlike powers of 1 class. I prefer that all classes are meant be equally viable in their roles, and only differ in the mechanics of how they fulfill that. I love that there are party roles in the first place, something AD&D and Pathfinder spectacularly fail at delivering since they weren't designed with clear party roles in mind. I especially love that almost nothing in Pillars is a complete waste of your experience points since even a subjective trap choice has niche uses, unlike a lot of the bloated systems in 3.5 and Pathfinder.

 

Wizard is already the most versatile class in the game, able to fill multiple roles in a party with almost no investment in specializing.  The way this game is designed that makes them powerful. It's not 'blow up a hundred troops with a snap of my fingers' power, but it's power nonetheless.

Edited January 7, 2019 by protopersona

[Franknstein]

And, well, all D&D rules variants are TT games, ment to be played w. a GM to mediate things. Inbalance of classes included. Not so much in a computer game.

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

Also perhaps worth noting. D&D of old balanced around frequent death and rolling new characters every other session. If u got character to about lv 7/8 without dying to stupid pit trap, u were on a hot streak.

 

In this context, risk/reward of surviving dangerous early levels with useless, fragile character to become Death Destroyer of Worlds made sense. It comes unstuck when everyones guaranteed to hit their power spikes.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Also perhaps worth noting. D&D of old balanced around frequent death and rolling new characters every other session. If u got character to about lv 7/8 without dying to stupid pit trap, u were on a hot streak.

 

In this context, risk/reward of surviving dangerous early levels with useless, fragile character to become Death Destroyer of Worlds made sense. It comes unstuck when everyones guaranteed to hit their power spikes.

Yeah, that's how we used to play D&D basic with the blue box, all the way up to the first years of AD&D. Personally, I loved it. Level 8 was the pinnacle of achievement. Usually, our characters had a hard time surviving half a scenario, and we started over, by the intrepid survivors recruiting a newcomer, always lvl 1, xp 0. We even had sessions where party members turned on each other, and in rare cases, this ended with "unfortunate accidents".

Edited January 7, 2019 by IndiraLightfoot

[Bleak]

 

So you might want to decide what the case is about spell-casting classes. If they were so "unreliable and unforgiving" in DnD, why are they "tier 1"?

 

prob cos martial classes are subject to same rng, but when they pass roll against target, they remove one layer of stoneskin - or maybe do 2d6+14 damage

 

Meanwhile, when casters pass roll they destroy entire village, open portal to baator, invoke divine intervention or trap someone in rocky prison several hundred feet underground forever. or as a party trick, make ur thief redundant.

 

 

ROFL, good one

 

 

Ah, now we've gotten to the core of things. You don't care if other classes feel like a subjective waste of space, you don't care about if non-caster classes are viable. You just want magic to be the overpowered empowerment fantasy you're used to. To hell with game balance, roleplaying a demi-god is way more important. /s

 

 

Look, you want to die on the hill that magic needs to feel amazingly powerful, be my guest. You need your empowerment fantasy, then go for it. Go play the game that gives you that, cause this game isn't it, and I'm glad it's not.

 

Personally I prefer MMO style balance. I prefer that I don't have to regret that I chose something because it looked interesting, but takes forever to kill anything because the game had to take into account the almost godlike powers of 1 class. I prefer that all classes are meant be equally viable in their roles, and only differ in the mechanics of how they fulfill that. I love that there are party roles in the first place, something AD&D and Pathfinder spectacularly fail at delivering since they weren't designed with clear party roles in mind. I especially love that almost nothing in Pillars is a complete waste of your experience points since even a subjective trap choice has niche uses, unlike a lot of the bloated systems in 3.5 and Pathfinder.

 

Wizard is already the most versatile class in the game, able to fill multiple roles in a party with almost no investment in specializing.  The way this game is designed that makes them powerful. It's not 'blow up a hundred troops with a snap of my fingers' power, but it's power nonetheless.

 

 

Why do you look like you have come to some kind of realization? I said this before - perfect balance is for MMOs. Do you think the lack of it was one of DnD's flaws? It was actually one of the things that made it enjoyable.

 

All these DnD games that have been released before and DOS:I & II worked fine - this is self-evident by their success. Your fears are unfounded. Other classes never felt like a waste of time, parties worked great, build guides were made for every kind of class. Every class was powerful in the end - did casters have an edge? Yes, but as long as the other classes were viable and powerful too and worked well in a party, why would you even want "MMO balance"? If you think these games didn't work fine and none picked other classes, I urge you to do a research and find out if that was the case. Also saying that these games fail at delivering good party play... is quite a strong statement, considering their success, their fanbase and all published guides about builds and tactics. 

 

Why don't you try playing P:K above the challenging difficulty while ignoring party roles? See what happens.

 

These bloated systems in PK/DnD offer you a myriad of choices and traps are not as many as you think. It's not fair to compare it in that regard with Sawyer's system though, because the latter is still in its infancy. 

 

The opposite from what you claim happens imo - the wizard is pretty much restricted to being a debuff bot and the trap is every other spell (except martial ones). I think this is evident e.g. by everyone saying "do you use your wizard for debuffs?", when someone complains about damage spells.

 

 

Of course, I can't help it if you disagree. Everyone has their opinion. Mine is that casters feel terrible to play throughout 90% of the game, since I don't even feel that they reach that MMO balance quota with their limited resources, huge casting times and weak defenses. A combination of them can be very useful in a party for debuffs - that's it. 

Edited January 7, 2019 by Bleak

[Manveru123]

Wizards have weak defenses? With Shield, Mirror Image, Displacement and Blur?? Caster classes are the easiest solo Unfair characters in Kingmaker, and the only thing stopping you from crushing the game in one fell swoop is having to rest a lot. Well they used to be, because Kineticist is more efficient..

 

And in Deadfire, Wizard is on top of its game - great self buffs, crowd control AND damage in one hot package.

 

I mean this is nothing compared to sheer awesomesauce of 2nd edition DnD Wizards who were basically gods at higher level, but recent games really did Wizzies some justice imo.

[Triple - A Foxy Lad]

Why do you look like you have come to some kind of realization? I said this before - perfect balance is for MMOs. Do you think the lack of it was one of DnD's flaws? It was actually one of the things that made it enjoyable.

I aint disputing that. Got plenty of great memories of ad&d. I just dont understand why i cant enjoy both craftsmanship *and* freewheeling lunacy depending on mood and context. I got skepta, guitar wolf and al stewart all on my ipod.

 

All these DnD games that have been released before and DOS:I & II worked fine - this is self-evident by their success. Your fears are unfounded.

I would have had a lot more fun in dos if theyd actually stress tested their combat. Gearing whole party towards one damage type was a real downer. The mobility creep quickly became tedious. I played through it once and will prob go back at some point, but it wont be for a while. The games carelessness too often crossed the threshold from endearing to irritating.

 

Other classes never felt like a waste of time, parties worked great, build guides were made for every kind of class. Every class was powerful in the end

Fam, the bards uselessness was a straight up meme. It wasnt just a contested truth. It was universally acknowledged to the point where final fantasy 4, of all things, openly took the piss, assured that players would get the joke.

 

If you think these games didn't work fine and none picked other classes, I urge you to do a research and find out if that was the case.

Well if ud took ur own advice, ud have learnt that wizards in poe are considered a benchmark class by most of the playerbase. Yet u insist on their weakness. Why would u expect everyone else to perform a task which is apparenty beyond urself?

 

Also saying that these games fail at delivering good party play... is quite a strong statement, considering their success, their fanbase and all published guides about builds and tactics.

Why dont we all just play fortnite and be done with it then.

 

Mate, all thats going on here is that u have an agenda that rule of cool should take priority over fine tuning and damn the consquences - bcs the playerbase can impose their own balance thru selective application of a games systems.

 

There is an argument for this, but it comes with at least three issues that u havent acknowledged. 1. Selective application is limited in a video game as u have no DM. 2. U freeze out a certain percentage of players who are detered from playing game how they wish (eg. I wanted to play a rounded party in dos2, and the game told me to **** off.) 3. As viable choices in game are limited, it throttles replayability.

 

Ur also glossing over fact that the success of the ad&d games didnt happen in a void. The games were partly successful bcs they piggybacked off an experience people already had positive feelings about.

 

How well the games stood on their own was less important than how well they made certain connections in folks brains. Part of the reason BG1 was a blinding success was bcs it was a big ol dose of nostalgia that invited players to immerse themselves in memories of campaigns past. For newcomers, it was an introduction to an established arcane world full of nooks and crannies - both in its lore and its system. It had the thrill of exploration.

 

New games and new systems cant rely on that context. Part of the reason i half-bounced off dos is bcs its imperfections have no history to flatter them. People have heartwarming stories about looking up THAC0 tables with friends and taking drizzt seriously as a kid. Divinitys systems and lore dont have that advantage.

 

I think its telling that i enjoyed dos most when it most resembled ultima 7 - and that a huge factor in its success was the multiplayer option recreating tabletop.

 

Im rambling now. Tapping on phone not coducive to coherent thought, so ill just end with notion that even if games can rely on history, they cant do so forever. Time comes for us all. This is why i appreciate games that attempt the heavy lifting of development and optimisation, even if they sometimes run into dead ends.

 

Occasionally, wheel needs reinventing - or breaking, in deadfires case.

[AFA]

 

 

 

What I despise most in the PoE system is that spells go through the same resolution as attacks do. Early-mid casters feel like crap to play, summons are terrible, damage spells feel like a weak aoe attack that casually misses even if they are limited per combat - only CCs are somewhat worth it but I found that it is better using a different setup in the first place.

Early-mid casters suck, now that's new! Never has it happened before in any game ever! =P

Tell that to the BG1 wolf!

Once the ungodly power of "sleep" has been unleashed the darts would do the talking!!!

 

 

Sleep, the bane of DMs everywhere at lower level.

 

In Pathfinder, it is actually pretty useless, as it only hits humanoids and there is no coup-de-gras. Kingmaker's best level 1 spell then becomes Grease. So, somewhat like PoE1

[Verde]

Cast Meteor Storm and tell me you don't feel like a badass. Magic is pretty powerful, you just have to jump through some weird hoops like useless subclasses and set grimoires.

Edited January 7, 2019 by Verde