The turn order is COMPLETELY broken. Needs total overhaul

[hansbricks12]

In any case, we should get a list going of areas most affected by the initiative/action point trade-off imbalance that should be addressed in a balance pass. I'll start.

 

Armor - I think this is an obvious one, other than casters I think the value of heavy-armor outweighs the initiative cost. Reducing movement points would be a good start, as they seem much more valuable in turn based mode. Even reducing movement by 50% for the heaviest wouldn't be enough in my opinion, as this would be easily negated by stride skills, of which there are many. 60% reduction would be reasonable I think.

 

Light Weapons - Damage on the heavier weapons is roughly 37% higher on average, so removing the -35% damage penalty for dual wielding 2 light weapons would go a long way towards bridging that gap. Light weapons could also have an  accuracy bonus as a way of bridging the gap

 

Modals - I feel conflicted here, as the Modals that have suddenly become useful are the ones that were rather unusable in RTWP due to the hefty 50% recover penalty. Modals that increase penetration & Accuracy should come with a damage reduction instead of an initiative cost.

 

Dexterity - I'm fine with Dex becoming more important for spellcasters than melee. I think this actually helps the balance a bit, as it give melee more stats to work with than spellcasters, and spellcasters are already quite powerful in turn-based.

 

Any others? 

[hansbricks12]

Accidentally double-posted waiting for mod approval, sorry.

Edited January 29, 2019 by hansbricks12

[Faray]

The action economy works in DnD because 1) Not every class can use every item (At least not without feats), so you can't have everyone wearing full plate armor. 2) Dex in DnD helps with AC, so that makes light armors more viable 3) There are more bonuses to using lighter weapons (Dual-Wielding, Dex instead of Str for rolls, even sneak attack). None of that is in this game. Even if people don't like the idea of a roundless imitative system, there needs to be some more benefit than just going first. Yes going first is good, but not good enough for a lot of things you give up. If nothing else, maybe a bonus to accuracy, and crit if you are earlier.

[hansbricks12]

They could do something to make initiative more powerful, such as getting a full "surprise" round to act. You would then be at the beginning of the first round as well, essentially getting two turns in a row. They could take the 5 lowest initiative scores in any given fight and give those a full surprise round to act, then will act again in round 1 before the other combatants.

[Elric Galad]

First round mostly matters in short encounters.

[Crumbleton]

Going first is more important if you are using CC. Being able to remove a turn from your enemies is pretty powerful.

 

You can also get a surprise round attacking from stealth (from what I've experienced)

 

Armor: heavy armors are better for pure damage dealers it seems, unless you are trying to do a stun etc etc etc they're still not good for casters but for a pure damage dealer relying on weapon attacks they're fine. I feel reducing walk speed could have the unintended consequence of making heavy armor really good for ranged DPS and terrible for melee.

 

Light weapons: definitely need some love either through a damage increase or getting an extra attack per round.

 

Modals: I find myself using modals more frequently, I have a sharpshooter in heavy armor wielding an arequebus and it's pretty great. They probably need to evaluate some of the modals though.

 

Engagements: need to be automatic imo. Being able to run past enemies and vice versa is a bit to silly without eating oppurtunity attacks.

 

Damage: Needs to be increased for turn based imo. I have a feeling tougher enemies will become sponges and take a good while to defeat.

 

Breakpoints:for spells /CC there are some that need to be checked I feel some things are just not very good until you have enough int or PL to add an additional round, and then they can be a bit crazy.

 

Chanters: maybe find the average amount of rounds per combat and reduce invocation cost by one as a start. Could possibly have problems with skald and troubador though

 

Ciphers: have a pretty poor action economy imo since they need to AA and cast. Them and chanter probably need to be looked at the most imo.

[jonny_taco]

My "vote" is for dropping rounds and using a dynamic initiative system.  As others have explained, better initiative means more total "turns" per fight and this presents some balancing problems.  Fast dex based characters will inherently have more utility meaning that dps should be measurably lower than a slower might based character.  Finding the sweet spot for the turn rate is not going to be simple but is definitely the direction Obsidian should be heading imo.

[Bo Yo]

 

 

I dont think you have any idea what you are talking about. You want to replace might by dex for some classes, whats the point? They will just dump might then. Each class will have dump stat might or dex. 

And no, I dont agree with any of your points. 

 

Your outrage inducing attitude has turned this exchange into an insufferable affair, and it was wrought with hyperbole and needless exaggeration to begin with.

 

 

"Bla bla bla insufferable, bla bla hyperbole, bla bla look at me feigning intelligence while I cover my retreat because I can't keep up with the argument I started" 

 

Thanks for the amusement. Your suggestion regarding initiative and actions was just a lesser version of the suggestion made by the original post. Your suggestion to have dexterity function like might for certain classes is useless. It would make very little difference and wouldn't solve the main issue. Speedy characters with low damage frequent hits, dual wielding, and light armor are gimped in the current system. Heavy and slow hits, long reloads, heavy armor, shield modals, these things don't quite have the drawbacks that they should in the current system. It seems like giving low initiative a more direct advantage or a bit of a rework might be necessary. But giving more/less turns to characters and enemies, that would be tricky to balance. I'm sure they've worked hard and made this as close to balanced as they could, and it is still early days.  

Edited January 30, 2019 by Bo Yo

[theevilyouknow]

I see a light people worried that a roundless system makes dexterity the best stat. That's not a criticism. Something has to be the best stat. It's just as acceptable for it to be dex as any other stat. That said if the alternative to dexterity, light armor, and light weapons being the best options is them being completely worthless options I don't know how that's an acceptable alternative. It's simply not good game design for heavy armor and slow weapons to be pure upside, and for light armor and fast weapons to be worse in all scenarios. It doesn't matter what is the best option, as long as they're maximizing the number of viable options, which is just absolutely not the case right now.

[Dead Inside]

I don't usually post here, but here's a fast and loose suggestion for how turn-based could work:

 

- There are still rounds, as is right now. Initiative and movement works as it does right now.

- Recovery speed is removed as a mechanic in turn-based

- Modals/heavier armor impose a penalty on initiative and action speed.

- Heavier armor also imposes a penalty on movement.

 

Each character has a "power bar" (which starts at 100%). Performing an action eats up a portion of that power bar. Each action has a base amount of power it consumes, which is modified positively/negatively by action speed.

The main idea is to allow "faster" actions (such as attacking) to be performed multiple times per round and slower actions (casting) to be performed less.

 

E.g. On martial characters:

- Base attacks and martial skills (skills which use character's weapons e.g. Flames of Devotion) consumes (rough number) 40% of the power bar, which means you could get 2 full attacks in per round. Having higher action speed means you can get more attacks in, i.e. once you get down to 33% for a base attack (modified by action speed) you can get 3 full attacks in, etc.

- The disadvantage is that this system has hard "cut-offs" for when you get more attacks, e.g. there's no point having 37% per attack since you still only get 2 attacks in per round. This could (possibly?) be remedied by allowing unused power to spill over to the next round. As per the last suggestion: you perform two attacks costing 40% each, leaving you with 20% power left over. Next round, you get 100% + 20% power left over from last round, meaning you could perform 3 attacks (40% * 3 = 120%)

  

On caster characters:

- 6 second cast spells consume around 90% power, 80% for 4.5 casts, 70% for 3 second cast etc. Like with attacks, action speed decreases power consumed for spells.

- Casting spells works as it does now: you target it, then later in the round it is cast. HOWEVER, when the spell is cast, you get to act again, albeit with part of the power bar consumed. E.g. say you have 2 spells you can cast for 50%. You cast the first one, it goes off later in the round. You can now act again, but you have 50% of your power bar remaining.

- Short cast spells and buffs (those with 0.5, 0.4, 0.0 seconds casting) cost a small amount of the power bar - respectively 10%, 5% and 0%.

 

As an additional precaution, the power bar can't exceed 200%, i.e. you can't end turn 4 times and then have a round with 400% power bar.

[Crumbleton]

Heavy armor and being slow isn't the best now. If you're to slow on a caster you'll move every other round and be much worse off btw.

 

Everyone keeps saying rounders combat, that would just be exactly how the normal game mode is, it's not a real inventive idea and seems counter productive to having a round based system.

 

They need to increse damage either through more actions a round or a flat % increase to allow initiative to be stronger and make combat quicker.

[mostundesired]

Heavy armor and being slow isn't the best now. If you're to slow on a caster you'll move every other round and be much worse off btw.

 

Everyone keeps saying rounders combat, that would just be exactly how the normal game mode is, it's not a real inventive idea and seems counter productive to having a round based system.

 

They need to increse damage either through more actions a round or a flat % increase to allow initiative to be stronger and make combat quicker.

Casters aren't the only class. The stats are supposed to be good for everyone, that's core to the design philosophy of the game. Besides them, not going first has very minimal disadvantages right now. Especially because the only way to deny someone a turn is by casting, interrupting a cast, or being one of the few non-caster classes that has paralysis or the like.

 

Inventiveness for its own sake doesn't make for a fun combat system. It is counterproductive to a round system, but rounds are not the only way to have a turn-based system.

 

More actions per turn would break the game faster than more turns in general. More attacks could work, but that still doesn't fix the problem with all the other things action speed affected. I don't know how a percentage increase would make initiative better if anyone who doesn't have to cast doesn't care about it.

 

I get that you like rounds, but the game can't turn into 5e-lite. There's just too much built into the game that doesn't work that way, and some things that have to not work that way. If they keep rounds, and if they include multiple actions per turn, so be it, but the basis of those decisions should prioritize balance, not an adherence to a newly introduced mechanic that breaks another one and, more importantly, makes entire builds obsolete.

[Primator]

 

I don't usually post here, but here's a fast and loose suggestion for how turn-based could work:

 

- There are still rounds, as is right now. Initiative and movement works as it does right now.

- Recovery speed is removed as a mechanic in turn-based

- Modals/heavier armor impose a penalty on initiative and action speed.

- Heavier armor also imposes a penalty on movement.

 

Each character has a "power bar" (which starts at 100%). Performing an action eats up a portion of that power bar. Each action has a base amount of power it consumes, which is modified positively/negatively by action speed.

The main idea is to allow "faster" actions (such as attacking) to be performed multiple times per round and slower actions (casting) to be performed less.

 

E.g. On martial characters:

- Base attacks and martial skills (skills which use character's weapons e.g. Flames of Devotion) consumes (rough number) 40% of the power bar, which means you could get 2 full attacks in per round. Having higher action speed means you can get more attacks in, i.e. once you get down to 33% for a base attack (modified by action speed) you can get 3 full attacks in, etc.

- The disadvantage is that this system has hard "cut-offs" for when you get more attacks, e.g. there's no point having 37% per attack since you still only get 2 attacks in per round. This could (possibly?) be remedied by allowing unused power to spill over to the next round. As per the last suggestion: you perform two attacks costing 40% each, leaving you with 20% power left over. Next round, you get 100% + 20% power left over from last round, meaning you could perform 3 attacks (40% * 3 = 120%)

  

On caster characters:

- 6 second cast spells consume around 90% power, 80% for 4.5 casts, 70% for 3 second cast etc. Like with attacks, action speed decreases power consumed for spells.

- Casting spells works as it does now: you target it, then later in the round it is cast. HOWEVER, when the spell is cast, you get to act again, albeit with part of the power bar consumed. E.g. say you have 2 spells you can cast for 50%. You cast the first one, it goes off later in the round. You can now act again, but you have 50% of your power bar remaining.

- Short cast spells and buffs (those with 0.5, 0.4, 0.0 seconds casting) cost a small amount of the power bar - respectively 10%, 5% and 0%.

 

As an additional precaution, the power bar can't exceed 200%, i.e. you can't end turn 4 times and then have a round with 400% power bar.

 

I had a very similar idea, with action points, one point would equal one second in RTWP. Everyone should get a fixed amount of points per turn, speed adjustment would be made to action cost not action points.

Your idea with a 100% power (Stamina?) is even better, cause the numbers from RTWP translate better. If 100% is worth 5, 8, 10 (whatever) seconds of actions has to be figured out.

Every duration effect can be transferred easily to this system as well. Effects should be applied at the next turn, if the target moved already.

 

If leftover power can be taken to the next round I would cap it more, maybe 30% max and only take 50% of the remaining. Otherwise it acts like an expensive buff.

 

Spellcasting could be taken to the next round, e.g. you have 50% left and cast a spell that costs 90%, it will be cast in the next round and 40% are deducted.

 

I don't mind if DEX is considered the best attribute in RTWP or not, it should have a similar effect in TB.

Initiative however should be determined by PER, cause that is the attribute which determines how good you react on situations, DEX just defines how quick your reactive action is.

 

Engagement has to be default 1 for every character again, otherwise manoeuvring through a horde of enemies feels very strange in TB.

 

 

I liked RTWP in older games but in PoE it feels a bit busy, I often just let the AI do the job or stick to auto attack, for 50% of the fight.

I think the older games just didn't have to many skills to manage, especially for non casters.

 

Really looking forward to see what Obsisian is doing the the new TB system.

[Crumbleton]

 

Heavy armor and being slow isn't the best now. If you're to slow on a caster you'll move every other round and be much worse off btw.

 

Everyone keeps saying rounders combat, that would just be exactly how the normal game mode is, it's not a real inventive idea and seems counter productive to having a round based system.

 

They need to increse damage either through more actions a round or a flat % increase to allow initiative to be stronger and make combat quicker.

Casters aren't the only class. The stats are supposed to be good for everyone, that's core to the design philosophy of the game. Besides them, not going first has very minimal disadvantages right now. Especially because the only way to deny someone a turn is by casting, interrupting a cast, or being one of the few non-caster classes that has paralysis or the like.

 

Inventiveness for its own sake doesn't make for a fun combat system. It is counterproductive to a round system, but rounds are not the only way to have a turn-based system.

 

More actions per turn would break the game faster than more turns in general. More attacks could work, but that still doesn't fix the problem with all the other things action speed affected. I don't know how a percentage increase would make initiative better if anyone who doesn't have to cast doesn't care about it.

 

I get that you like rounds, but the game can't turn into 5e-lite. There's just too much built into the game that doesn't work that way, and some things that have to not work that way. If they keep rounds, and if they include multiple actions per turn, so be it, but the basis of those decisions should prioritize balance, not an adherence to a newly introduced mechanic that breaks another one and, more importantly, makes entire builds obsolete.

Well you can look at it two ways, having stuff that isn't good in RTWP be good in turn based is pretty awesome. Being able to use weapon modals you'd normally never use is awesome! An increase in damage makes going first more important because you or the enemies die faster. If you play fps games getting the drop one someone is so strong because ttk is low.

 

It is okay to have different balance between game modes, not having action speed lord over eveything can be a good thing. As I said you still need it for casters or you'll lose turns which makes your casters much worse. Again it's okay to have balance be different it's going to happen in a different mode. Right now the mode suffers from being sluggish and slow imo. I think they need to figure out how long they want an average encounter to be (total rounds) and balance accordingly. You can have some fights take a while in TMWP but if you extend that over rounds it can be a bit much.

 

I think eveyone can agree the fights are a bit to long in this mode and it can get rather annoying.

[SChin]

Hey everyone!

 

Thank you all for the amazing feedback on this.  I'll put a report together so the team can take a look at this and see what they want to do with the information here.  Please continue the discussion here as I'll be linking this thread to the report for the team to see it.

 

Thanks again for all the amazing help and feedback!

[Dead Inside]

I had a very similar idea, with action points, one point would equal one second in RTWP. Everyone should get a fixed amount of points per turn, speed adjustment would be made to action cost not action points.

 

 

 

Your idea with a 100% power (Stamina?) is even better, cause the numbers from RTWP translate better. If 100% is worth 5, 8, 10 (whatever) seconds of actions has to be figured out.

Every duration effect can be transferred easily to this system as well. Effects should be applied at the next turn, if the target moved already.

 

If leftover power can be taken to the next round I would cap it more, maybe 30% max and only take 50% of the remaining. Otherwise it acts like an expensive buff.

 

Spellcasting could be taken to the next round, e.g. you have 50% left and cast a spell that costs 90%, it will be cast in the next round and 40% are deducted.

 

I don't mind if DEX is considered the best attribute in RTWP or not, it should have a similar effect in TB.

Initiative however should be determined by PER, cause that is the attribute which determines how good you react on situations, DEX just defines how quick your reactive action is.

 

Engagement has to be default 1 for every character again, otherwise manoeuvring through a horde of enemies feels very strange in TB.

 

 

I liked RTWP in older games but in PoE it feels a bit busy, I often just let the AI do the job or stick to auto attack, for 50% of the fight.

I think the older games just didn't have to many skills to manage, especially for non casters.

 

Really looking forward to see what Obsisian is doing the the new TB system.

 

 

Honestly, I made the suggestion in light of two points that have been generally thrown about here and everywhere else (and one other point that I don't believe has been mentioned enough). That is to say,

1: Action speed went from being the most precious thing to have to one of the least since it only affects initiative, which only effects turn order, and going first isn't that important given that in this game there are no enemies which instantly kill you or chain CC. Action speed should give you a benefit, just not nearly as much as it does in RTWP; you certainly shouldn't be able to walk a 20 DEX devoted/streetfighter into a group of enemies and make something like 7 attacks + Mob Stance procs while they make 1.

2: Martial classes took a big hit in the current version of "everyone gets one action" turn-based since you get to make 1 attack per turn, which is almost always inferior to casting one spell per turn unless you've jumped through the hoops and are fully pimped to reliably crit every time you attack. Hence the suggestion to give martial classes access to more attacks per turn, but also to not punish casters for taking action speed. I guess this idea (in hindsight) would also inadvertently fix ciphers, since gaining focus and spending it has a really poor time spent to pay off ratio as it stands right now.

3: (as someone who likes buffs) It's weird that there are now a lot of buffs which are completely free (cough, wizard) and a lot of buffs which take up your whole turn to use (Minor Avatar, the Litany spells, Druid spells like Form of the Delmegan or Nature's Bounty, consumables, which is relevant for Nalpazca fans). Having buffs cost something is reasonable, having them take up your whole turn... not so much. Again, hence the power/stamina bar idea, with buffs consuming a small portion of it. I guess this even applies to all those fast-casting healing spells.

[mostundesired]

Well you can look at it two ways, having stuff that isn't good in RTWP be good in turn based is pretty awesome. Being able to use weapon modals you'd normally never use is awesome! An increase in damage makes going first more important because you or the enemies die faster. If you play fps games getting the drop one someone is so strong because ttk is low.

 

It is okay to have different balance between game modes, not having action speed lord over eveything can be a good thing. As I said you still need it for casters or you'll lose turns which makes your casters much worse. Again it's okay to have balance be different it's going to happen in a different mode. Right now the mode suffers from being sluggish and slow imo. I think they need to figure out how long they want an average encounter to be (total rounds) and balance accordingly. You can have some fights take a while in TMWP but if you extend that over rounds it can be a bit much.

 

I think eveyone can agree the fights are a bit to long in this mode and it can get rather annoying.

I think you kind of missed my point. Of course the balance is going to be different, but they have an entire mechanic to adjust for. This did not only switch around what options are better than others. They can't JUST increase damage, or JUST add more attacks.

 

Incoming wall of text.

 

How do they account for a dagger user and a sword user using the same ability (strike the bell, let's say)? The sword user's will now always be better because it does more damage 9/10 times. What made you want to use daggers over swords, if ever, was action speed AND recovery (both affected by dex). That allowed a quicker reaction to potential dangers, shutting down an ability I don't want used/casted or delaying a big hitter until I can get that one last bit of damage in.

 

Of course, that doesn't translate to turn based, you have to anticipate, not react. Well, my dagger helps me anticipate a little bit, because I can go first, but rounds ensure that everyone gets a turn unless I have one of the few abilities that let's me paralyze (or whatever) the enemy. If I'm lucky, or I planned right, I can delay them until the rest of my party takes them out. A good move, but one that won't come up often. Going first will almost never matter. At best, you'll delay a caster's spell so you can interrupt it before it finishes being casted next turn. That's good! Or, I could just dump my dex and interrupt it on the same turn. Swords also have two damage types, and without being able to attack more often, swords will always be better in that regard, too.

 

So if going first isn't too effective, we have to concentrate on the other thing sex does, allow more actions. Logically, more dex would mean more actions per turn. Well, that evens out the damage, but there's still other things to account for.

 

Let's look at concentration. I can get rid of it, then use another interrupting attack to delay their turn. Two problems, if they have concentration, they probably already went this round. And even if they didn't, it doesn't matter, because delaying their turn doesn't help me. And hell, what do I even need concentration for, if I'm not casting? Even if I get delayed, I still get my turn. The only way I can see that being worthwhile (and correct me if I'm wrong but I'm going to go on anyway) is if interrupt skips your turn.

 

We can't just have flat out turn skipping, though. That can be exploited something fierce in this game in particular because of the many sources of interrupts. So what then? Does interrupt instead deny the character an action? Now that, actually, sounds like a good idea. Makes interrupt and concentration stacks relevant without being overpowering. Maybe prone takes two actions, and flying up into the air takes three. Who knows.

 

Well, let's look at multiple actions per turn now. Multiple free actions is already stupid strong. I don't think multiple standard actions would be AS strong, but how does that balance against spells? In one turn, my dagger character can now wreak havoc instantly. Why is my caster waiting so long to do the same amount of damage? Or possibly less damage. In RTWP you could interrupt what in turn based is a standard action (though it required very careful timing). That doesn't have to translate perfectly, but we have to make sure whatever is being casted is proportionally worth waiting and having your resource wasted. Is it then worth it to have to wait to cast the spell, forgoing your other actions? Does using one action deny me a spell? Would it instead be better to make spells cost a proportional number of actions? What if I don't have that many actions because my dex is so low? What if I have more than enough actions to cast two or more devestating spells? Etc, etc.

 

We also have to make sure those standard action attacks are balanced so they're not just spammed immediately and entirely. Maybe the resource cost we have now is enough to balance that, I don't know.

 

Let's also look at other things besides attacking. Movement? I will probably never have to move that much, but what if I want the option to move around and attack multiple targets? Does my dex/initiative affect that? Does each movement take up an action? Does it work like dash in D&D 5e? How about potion/item use?

 

What if I want to do nothing? If I end m turn without doing anything, should I get more actions? How much more? Why can't I control where my turn gets delayed to?

 

And finally, in general, they would have to balance everything with consideration to both it's action time and and recovery time, and I have no idea how much work would have to go into that. The stamina idea seems appropriate for it at first glance, although one glaring problem I just noticed is it doesn't account for concentration/interrupt.

 

Now, that's a whole lot of balancing, bug checking, and miscellaneous work to be done. If done right, I think it could be really cool, but hoo boy would our dev bois and gurls have their work cut our for them. Or, they could get rid of rounds and have dex determine turn frequency and balance around that. Honestly, I'm fine with either, but I really think one is more realistic than the other for a free game mode.

[Primator]

 

...

 

 

Honestly, I made the suggestion in light of two points that have been generally thrown about here and everywhere else (and one other point that I don't believe has been mentioned enough). That is to say,

1: Action speed went from being the most precious thing to have to one of the least since it only affects initiative, which only effects turn order, and going first isn't that important given that in this game there are no enemies which instantly kill you or chain CC. Action speed should give you a benefit, just not nearly as much as it does in RTWP; you certainly shouldn't be able to walk a 20 DEX devoted/streetfighter into a group of enemies and make something like 7 attacks + Mob Stance procs while they make 1.

2: Martial classes took a big hit in the current version of "everyone gets one action" turn-based since you get to make 1 attack per turn, which is almost always inferior to casting one spell per turn unless you've jumped through the hoops and are fully pimped to reliably crit every time you attack. Hence the suggestion to give martial classes access to more attacks per turn, but also to not punish casters for taking action speed. I guess this idea (in hindsight) would also inadvertently fix ciphers, since gaining focus and spending it has a really poor time spent to pay off ratio as it stands right now.

3: (as someone who likes buffs) It's weird that there are now a lot of buffs which are completely free (cough, wizard) and a lot of buffs which take up your whole turn to use (Minor Avatar, the Litany spells, Druid spells like Form of the Delmegan or Nature's Bounty, consumables, which is relevant for Nalpazca fans). Having buffs cost something is reasonable, having them take up your whole turn... not so much. Again, hence the power/stamina bar idea, with buffs consuming a small portion of it. I guess this even applies to all those fast-casting healing spells.

 

I agree with you. Of course doing 7 attacks in one round would be way too much. 

I think the system might be easier to tweak as well once transported from RTWP. Certain actions could be limited to one per round or receive a multiplier for speed (power usage), for balancing purposes.

 

 

 

...

... The stamina idea seems appropriate for it at first glance, although one glaring problem I just noticed is it doesn't account for concentration/interrupt.

 

Now, that's a whole lot of balancing, bug checking, and miscellaneous work to be done. If done right, I think it could be really cool, but hoo boy would our dev bois and gurls have their work cut our for them. Or, they could get rid of rounds and have dex determine turn frequency and balance around that. Honestly, I'm fine with either, but I really think one is more realistic than the other for a free game mode.

 

I think concentration/interrupt is most difficult to translate into TB anyway, how are you supposed to interrupt anyone?!

I have no good idea for that.

Make it act like a speed debuff for the first action?! Would be still not a reactive action as it is supposed to be.

[theevilyouknow]

I don't think anyone is saying martial characters should be attacking 7 times a round, but a character who stacks dexterity, uses light weapons, and light armor should be rewarded with more attacks than the character with 3 dex, a greatsword, and full plate. Most importantly its the only way to make speed not strictly worse than power in all scenarios, but also it just makes sense. Even though turn based is not normal RTwP PoE it should still FEEL like the turn based version of normal PoE that it is supposed to be, and action speed and recovery are huge parts of real time PoE's combat. To have them be completely irrelevant in turn-based mode is just silly.

[Dead Inside]

Now, that's a whole lot of balancing, bug checking, and miscellaneous work to be done. If done right, I think it could be really cool, but hoo boy would our dev bois and gurls have their work cut our for them. Or, they could get rid of rounds and have dex determine turn frequency and balance around that. Honestly, I'm fine with either, but I really think one is more realistic than the other for a free game mode.

 

Hey, Obsidian made Fallout: New Vegas with less time and resources than Bethesda did with Fallout 76... well, let's not go there.

 

 

And finally, in general, they would have to balance everything with consideration to both it's action time and and recovery time, and I have no idea how much work would have to go into that. The stamina idea seems appropriate for it at first glance, although one glaring problem I just noticed is it doesn't account for concentration/interrupt.

 

Here's a thought: with the stamina idea, why not have interrupts strip off a small portion of the stamina bar (10/20%) - maybe if and only if you get interrupted but you're not casting? That is to say, if you get interrupted, you have less resources to use on your turn. This gives more of an encouragement to go first and use concentration if you're not a caster, since you're not risking losing possible resources.

[Crumbleton]

'How do they account for a dagger user and a sword user using the same ability (strike the bell, let's say)? The sword user's will now always be better because it does more damage 9/10 times. What made you want to use daggers over swords, if ever, was action speed AND recovery (both affected by dex). That allowed a quicker reaction to potential dangers, shutting down an ability I don't want used/casted or delaying a big hitter until I can get that one last bit of damage in. 

 

-- It's the same in the base game if you use strike the bell the swords are better 100% of the time for an ability for damage,  If light weapons had a trait where they could gain an additional attack or two while using a Full Round action it could continue to mimic how it works in game.

 

--We're sort of arguing the same point, but drawing separate conclusions.

 

'Well, let's look at multiple actions per turn now. Multiple free actions is already stupid strong. I don't think multiple standard actions would be AS strong, but how does that balance against spells? In one turn, my dagger character can now wreak havoc instantly. Why is my caster waiting so long to do the same amount of damage? Or possibly less damage. In RTWP you could interrupt what in turn based is a standard action (though it required very careful timing). That doesn't have to translate perfectly, but we have to make sure whatever is being casted is proportionally worth waiting and having your resource wasted. Is it then worth it to have to wait to cast the spell, forgoing your other actions? Does using one action deny me a spell? Would it instead be better to make spells cost a proportional number of actions? What if I don't have that many actions because my dex is so low? What if I have more than enough actions to cast two or more devestating spells? Etc, etc.'

 

I think your sort of straw-manning what i'm saying but i don't think it's intentional.  Multiple free actions probably needs to be capped to maybe 2 a round.  Now your asking how Using Strike the bell + a few auto attacks stack up against a spell?  It works the same way is it currently does in the game (although in game you can just use strike the bell spamming it).  Spells are incredibly strong they come with riders whether it be CC or debuffs, and cast in large AoE's.  IMO the spell casting is fine, a FULL ROUND action is that, it cost the entire round, you can't cast multiple high tier spells.  I have no idea where you're getting action speed and all this other stuff from i never really mentioned it.

 

Right now wizards / druid casting is fairly good if you have low enough initiative you get penalized which is good.  The problem right now is Martial builds only get access to a single attack compared to a wizard casting a fireball, which is pretty bad.  Now I really like round based combat,  so regardless of how they do it Weapon based builds need a way to attack multiple times a round.  I think in General DPR (damage per round) needs to be higher.  Now if DPR goes up initiative becomes a much better stat (increase damage for enemies too). 

 

Now if initiative is tied to gaining multiple attacks it becomes EVEN BETTER than it is in the base game where it's arguably by far the strongest stat in most cases.  It will now allow you to ACT first and increase your DPR.  So now your damage dealers are acting at the top of the round getting all there high damage out and you can probably remove enemies straight from combat.

 

I think they need to add another action type or two maybe to help round out the action economy.

[mostundesired]

-- It's the same in the base game if you use strike the bell the swords are better 100% of the time for an ability for damage, If light weapons had a trait where they could gain an additional attack or two while using a Full Round action it could continue to mimic how it works in game.

 

--We're sort of arguing the same point, but drawing separate conclusions.[/font]

 

I think your sort of straw-manning what i'm saying but i don't think it's intentional. Multiple free actions probably needs to be capped to maybe 2 a round. Now your asking how Using Strike the bell + a few auto attacks stack up against a spell? It works the same way is it currently does in the game (although in game you can just use strike the bell spamming it). Spells are incredibly strong they come with riders whether it be CC or debuffs, and cast in large AoE's. IMO the spell casting is fine, a FULL ROUND action is that, it cost the entire round, you can't cast multiple high tier spells. I have no idea where you're getting action speed and all this other stuff from i never really mentioned it.

 

Right now wizards / druid casting is fairly good if you have low enough initiative you get penalized which is good. The problem right now is Martial builds only get access to a single attack compared to a wizard casting a fireball, which is pretty bad. Now I really like round based combat, so regardless of how they do it Weapon based builds need a way to attack multiple times a round. I think in General DPR (damage per round) needs to be higher. Now if DPR goes up initiative becomes a much better stat (increase damage for enemies too).

 

Now if initiative is tied to gaining multiple attacks it becomes EVEN BETTER than it is in the base game where it's arguably by far the strongest stat in most cases. It will now allow you to ACT first and increase your DPR. So now your damage dealers are acting at the top of the round getting all there high damage out and you can probably remove enemies straight from combat.

 

I think they need to add another action type or two maybe to help round out the action economy.

You misinterpret me, the issue is lack of recovery time means the dagger user has the same amount of options as the sword user, when part of the balance between the two was the dagger user could finish their attack quickly, and then go do something else. But yes, we're basically arguing the same idea.

 

I'm not strawmanning you, I'm making my own suggestions and attempting to falsify them to make sure they stand. I wasn't directly responding to your ideas because they weren't 100% clear to me.

 

I was asking how multiple strike the bells in one turn compares to one spell in terms of damage. And the point was, are damage spells worth casting under these circumstances? If they are, then they are, but my point stands because I'm drawing attention to the balancing factor itself to make sure it works.

 

I'll respond to your idea now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying the way it should work is one standard action, and then bonus attacks based on weapon type? I hope you include dex into that because the point is to make that stat useful to every class. But, as you said, that means high dex equates to attacking first and the ability to alpha strike and take out enemies in turn one. Ignoring for a second that you can do that with RTWP regardless of dex, the glaring issue I can see is, what if I WANT to immediately spam all my abilities turn one? That was also one of the benefits of dex, using as many abilities as possible in a small amount of time. It gave you flexibility. What's the proportional equivalent if dex only allows me to go first? I suppose setting up positioning first or applying a quick single target (de)buff is nice, but that's literally what we have now that makes dex undervalued. Attacking all at once before the enemy gets to respond and hopefully taking them out? Well, possibly. That does become more valuable with higher damage per turn. But then small weapons are still undervalued. Instead, I would just pump dex and use the strongest single hit weapon I have. The only reason to use a small weapon is if I was going to do something with those extra attacks. Say, use multiple abilities. Circle back to the other concerns I have.

 

Different types of actions could fix that problem. What goes into which category and why, though? Do damage only attacks go into once per turn, and (de)buffs go into the "extra actions" slots that are based on your weapon? Are pure buffs still free actions? Because between buffing myself and damaging/debuffing the enemy, I think most would choose the latter for efficiency's sake alone. Should we limit those free actions (we should), and by how much, and does dex influence that too? What about consumables and movement? Personally, I'd put extra movements and consumable use in the "extra action based on weapon type" category. But, if those extra actions HAVE to be basic attacks, small weapons just aren't worth using, even if they do the same amount of damage. Too much RNG involved compared to medium or large weapons.

 

Plus, you'd have to figure out how to separate weapon speed from dex/initiative in a balanced way. Seems doable but I'm trepidatious.

 

And that's before we get into things like the weird interaction between ability duration and int, and the problems with guns, and the problem with chapters, three problems I only just started to consider and are a direct result of implementing rounds.

 

EDIT: On top of that, what about dual wielding weapons of different speeds? And one ranged and one melee? I'm partial to dagger and pistol myself and the current system doesn't mesh well with it.

Edited February 1, 2019 by mostundesired

[Crumbleton]

Yeah I think the whole thing depends on them wanting to keep rounds in the game, because weird interactions will occur because of that. For rounds to work I think you'll need to standardize a ton of stuff to make it feasible. There will undoubtedly be balance issues but I think this will happen regardless and we need to realize the game has gone through a ton of changes and need to rethink how we should approach this.

 

I feel dex not being super strong is okay.

 

So I mean I'll use this just as an example, you'll probably need to break weapons down to categories. Light, medium, and heavy. Light gets a +1 extra attack, medium +0, and heavy -1. You can than change dual wielding to add an extra attack.

So 2h weapons are classified as heavy, swords are the baseline medium weapon, and daggers would be considered light. You could then look at talent trees for the classes and alter one handed / two handed / gunner etc to fit turn based mode, by increasing the bonuses, altering them, etc etc.

 

 

They could also just use initiative as the catch all stat, have it be tied to turns in a round since a round is 6 seconds they could just do it that way, but then Initiative is sort of double dipping like I said in TBM. A lot will just depend on what there vision is and how they want to go about it.

 

 

100000% action economy is the big issue, you have a lot of stuff that requires multiple actions to be powerful but being locked to only 1 action per round is terrible for a ton of the classes. Blood mage is stupidly good because you can cast a high level spell every round while some people are stuck doing a single AA.

[hansbricks12]

 I also think people are generally under-valuing initiative right now and we should wait until it gets balanced a little better. Currently it's value is being severely undercut by a bug which causes the player party get a free round in practically every combat, as when combat begins you start in a round with you and only a few enemies that initiated combat with you. The game also seems to be giving a free "surprise" round when you start combat from stealth. Add to this that a lot of enemies seems to have very high initiative, such that even my characters with heavy armor, modals, two-handed and 3 DEX are still going before them.

 

I think if they buff enemy initiative a bit, fix the free round bug, and perhaps only give a 20% initiative bonus for starting from stealth people will change their tune. I have already had 1-2 encounters that punished my lack of initiative. Eating an entire room full of enemy attacks left 2 of my back-line dead before I had even self-buffed. Thankfully, I had a paladin rez handy.

 

Limiting char's to 1 free action/turn and adding some initiative to cast times would also help bring casters in-line, as they would be vulnerable to low-initiative enemies removing concentration and interrupting the cast.

 

I also like the idea of adding an extra attack to light weapons, as that would make one-handed builds more viable. 1 light weapon would get 2/attacks, dual wielding with 2 light would get another, so 3 attacks.

[Crumbleton]

I also think people are generally under-valuing initiative right now and we should wait until it gets balanced a little better. Currently it's value is being severely undercut by a bug which causes the player party get a free round in practically every combat, as when combat begins you start in a round with you and only a few enemies that initiated combat with you. The game also seems to be giving a free "surprise" round when you start combat from stealth. Add to this that a lot of enemies seems to have very high initiative, such that even my characters with heavy armor, modals, two-handed and 3 DEX are still going before them.

 

I think if they buff enemy initiative a bit, fix the free round bug, and perhaps only give a 20% initiative bonus for starting from stealth people will change their tune. I have already had 1-2 encounters that punished my lack of initiative. Eating an entire room full of enemy attacks left 2 of my back-line dead before I had even self-buffed. Thankfully, I had a paladin rez handy.

 

Limiting char's to 1 free action/turn and adding some initiative to cast times would also help bring casters in-line, as they would be vulnerable to low-initiative enemies removing concentration and interrupting the cast.

 

I also like the idea of adding an extra attack to light weapons, as that would make one-handed builds more viable. 1 light weapon would get 2/attacks, dual wielding with 2 light would get another, so 3 attacks.

Thought I'd add this, in the base game you get something like an 85%recovery reduction from attacks made in stealth so a surprise round is kind of fitting imo.

 

Yeah free actions are slightly problematic, in the base game you can do a bunch of buffs in a row with not much downside, but in turn based you could literally cast every free action ability you have for no downside, I think maybe having similar to what you say woth free actions maybe you get 1-2 (or you get more with pl) and have every free action thereafter cost movement to mimic real time.