I see that most people are enjoying the new turn-based beta gameplay, and that's good, but I need to offer a suggestion in case there's still time to influence how developers think about this new game option.

I tried the new mode briefly, but it felt too much like there were "hard turns", giving all characters exactly one action per grand turn. I think original PoE mechanics would translate much better if turn-based mode used a fluid and perpetual initiative queue. I remember it from Heroes Of Might & Magic 5. Each character would get its turn, but that turn order would fluctuate based on actions happening in battle. Also turn-based, and you'd keep the visual queue, but I think it would feel like a more natural variation of the original speed, recovery, and interrupt mechanics.

I didn't find the name for this kind of system here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turns,_rounds_and_time-keeping_systems_in_games#Sub-types

... but you can see it demonstrated here. The 1-minute mark to gets right into the battle sequence. See how the queue flows at the bottom of the screen. Casting things like haste or slow will alter the queue sequence, and you see the queue distance out far past any theoretical "hard turn".

https://youtu.be/axziXt4e1mA?t=60

 

Anyway. I'm back to playing realtime with pause. It "feels" more like PoE than the hard-turn mode. Play what you like.

I completely agree.

 

I don't post much here, but I wanted to come out of hiding to let the devs know this, or some close variation, seems like the common sense fix. I play PoE for the stats, character building, and tactical combat. I won't have any long term interest in a mode that breaks half the weapons, mechanics, and stats in the game.

 

I am hoping this hasn't been fixed yet because it is a much more significant change than other patches. I was excited for turn based and ready to fire up another play through when it leaves beta, but they've got to get it right. Dex needs to matter, daggers and light armor need to matter...

I agree, and there are other posts here that say the same thing.

 

I have always thought Obsidian devs were talented--that there must be SOME reason to elect a turn base system with hard turns.  But I can't find it.  Rather than introduce more balance and diversity, the latest patch just increases the weapon damage of smaller weapons to make them more competitive with larger, heavier, higher damage weapons in turn base mode.  It feels like a lazy solution, and I fear the rest of their balance solutions will look like this.  Rather than tackle the root cause--the "hard turns with one action"--they're going make everything feel the same.

 

So I too, returned to RTwP until they can rethink this.

Yes I agree as well. There should be a way to make faster characters/abilities faster.  This seems watered down.  I like the idea of action points, rather then just 1 point.

Yup... I agree that "continuous turn based" would be a much better system than "round turn based".  A continuous system is basically a mirror of the RTwP approach... so things like initiative translate meaningfully.

 

It would work something like this:

 

Take three characters:

Fast Fred(FF), with -30% initiative bonus

Medium Molly(MM), no initiative modifier

Slow Sam(SS), +30% initiative penalty

 

Round based system:

 

Round 1 - FF

Round 1 - MM

Round 1 - SS

Round 2 - FF

Round 2 - MM

Round 2 - SS

Round 3 - FF

Round 3 - MM

Round 3 - SS

Round 4 - FF

Round 4 - MM

Round 4 - SS

 

So everyone gets the same turns and initiative is pretty much meaningless

 

Whereas a continuous system:

 

Tick 0.7 FF

Tick 1.0 MM

Tick 1.3 SS

Tick 1.4 FF

Tick 2.0 MM

Tick 2.1 FF

Tick 2.6 SS

Tick 2.8 FF

Tick 3.0 MM

Tick 3.5 FF

Tick 3.9 SS

Tick 4.0 MM

 

So characters get the equivalent number of turns that they would get in RTwP.

Edited March 4, 20196 yr by Aetylus

As much as I am enyoing the new turn - based mode, I´d love to see a tick based system.

 

HoMM 5 is a good example. I know some Pen & Paper RPGs which use a tick based system as well and it´s alot of fun.

 

Scion and Exalted for instance. There is a german RPG as well called Splittermond which uses a tick system as well, but afaik it hasn´t been translated yet.

I have been out of the pen and paper scene for a while, but ISTR that Pathfinder, D&D, etc. are all "one character round per turn" systems, like Deadfire TB-mode. Can someone explain like I'm dumb what's wrong with Deadfire's approach, because it seems analogous (and is based on an adaptation of the one character round per turn system into real-time via infinity engine)? I'm not saying that continuous turn based or tick system is bad--I loved playing Final Fantasy Tactics and enjoyed HoMM--just wondering what the reason why people feel that Deadfire needs to be like that versus the "once/turn" systems.

I have been out of the pen and paper scene for a while, but ISTR that Pathfinder, D&D, etc. are all "one character round per turn" systems, like Deadfire TB-mode. Can someone explain like I'm dumb what's wrong with Deadfire's approach, because it seems analogous (and is based on an adaptation of the one character round per turn system into real-time via infinity engine)? I'm not saying that continuous turn based or tick system is bad--I loved playing Final Fantasy Tactics and enjoyed HoMM--just wondering what the reason why people feel that Deadfire needs to be like that versus the "once/turn" systems.

 

It's not so much that Deadfire's system is wrong as that the original action speed doesn't translate well into it. If the system had been designed from the start to only allow every character one action per turn, it wouldn't be an issue. But there's a lot of mechanics in Deadfire that modify how often you can act, and that just doesn't have the same impact when you have the same number of actions and it just decides how early you can take them.

I have been out of the pen and paper scene for a while, but ISTR that Pathfinder, D&D, etc. are all "one character round per turn" systems, like Deadfire TB-mode. Can someone explain like I'm dumb what's wrong with Deadfire's approach, because it seems analogous (and is based on an adaptation of the one character round per turn system into real-time via infinity engine)? I'm not saying that continuous turn based or tick system is bad--I loved playing Final Fantasy Tactics and enjoyed HoMM--just wondering what the reason why people feel that Deadfire needs to be like that versus the "once/turn" systems.

 

The pen-and-paper systems used round based because that is the only practical way to do it with pen-and-paper.

 

Computer RPGs have then used more nuanced systems because the computer can handle the math.  Deadfire's RTwP system basically does this.  So if a character has a dagger and light armour, then their attack speed is faster, so they hit more often.

 

The equivalent to the RTwP system (which is more nuanced) is to use a continuous turn based system (like the ticks noted above).  All of the rules and balancing would move over pretty directly then.

 

By going to rounds, all of the balancing is broken because speed is now largely irrelevant.  There is no advantage to using dagger, because it doesn't go any faster than a two-handed axe, but it does much less damage.

 

So basically:  Deadfire is balanced around RTwP.  'Tick' based mimics RTwP so is 'pre-balanced'.  Round based breaks all the existing game balance.

By going to rounds, all of the balancing is broken because speed is now largely irrelevant.  There is no advantage to using dagger, because it doesn't go any faster than a two-handed axe, but it does much less damage.

I mean, wasn't this the case with PnP or even classic IE? A dagger did 1d4 and you didn't get to go any more often than someone wielding a 2d4 bastard sword. I'm not saying that this was a good thing (I only understood it as a role-playing choice in BG/BG2 to be deliberately suboptimal), but how do newer TB or editions of D&D handle this?

Daggers tend to be more accurate, crit harder/more often, and qualify for sneak attack where larger weapons don't. They're also cheap, disposable, easily concealable, able to be thrown... How well that balancing actually works varies, but they're viable.

 

I think the thing to remember, though, is that this still beta. I'd like to see roundless turns as well, but it's going to take some time to implement and tune.

 

Action points would be nice, but a ton of work to actually balance, I think. So more than that I'd like to see better AI on engaging enemies and, in the same vein, I do think tick-based spells are doable, and that a similar approach could help with weapon attacks: rather than just a single attack per round, calculate a series of attacks based on your weapon(s) and Dex. It doesn't have to tick down or be interruptible -- basically just have it be a single DPS calculation, applied all in one action.

 

By going to rounds, all of the balancing is broken because speed is now largely irrelevant.  There is no advantage to using dagger, because it doesn't go any faster than a two-handed axe, but it does much less damage.

I mean, wasn't this the case with PnP or even classic IE? A dagger did 1d4 and you didn't get to go any more often than someone wielding a 2d4 bastard sword. I'm not saying that this was a good thing (I only understood it as a role-playing choice in BG/BG2 to be deliberately suboptimal), but how do newer TB or editions of D&D handle this?

 

 

In 5E D&D, weapon damage follows a fairly predictable formula.

 

First, there are two tiers of weapons, Simple and Martial; Simple weapons start at 1d6 damage, Martial weapons at 1d8.

 

In addition to damage, weapons have various properties, which can upgrade or downgrade their damage die. While not every weapon has a property, they typically get one beneficial property for free. So longswords (bastard swords are no longer separate) have the Versatile property, meaning they can be used either one or two handed; they're still 1d8 weapons in one hand, but they go up to 1d10 two-handed.

 

The Light property, which allows weapons to be dual wielded by default, and the Finesse property, which allows attackers to use Dexterity instead of Strength for their attack and damage rolls, are particularly relevant to this discussion; these almost always comes with a damage downgrade (the only two Light Martial weapons are also Finesse, and do 1d6 damage instead of 1d8, which is consistent with getting one property for free and losing a die size for the second; one is Finesse only and keeps the 1d8 die size; one has Finesse and Reach and does only 1d4. Simple weapons include four Light weapons that take a damage downgrade to 1d4, including the Sickle and Club which have no other properties, but also the Handaxe, which has an additional property but keeps 1d6 damage).

 

Finesse and Light are both fairly desirable properties in this system in spite of the damage die tradeoff: Dexterity is a better stat than Strength outside of melee offense, so sacrificing a bit of damage on your weapon to be able to focus on a better attribute is a worthwhile tradeoff. Dual wielding is good in action economy terms: it's one of the easiest ways to get a damage dealing Bonus Action (you get one Action and one Bonus Action per turn; non-martial classes never get more than one attack per Action and only high level Fighters get more than two attacks per action, so a Bonus Action attack is a big boost to DPR).

 

Daggers specifically are still bad, but this is mostly because they're Simple weapons and any character that frequently attacks with a weapon will find a way to get a Martial weapon. As Simple weapons go they're arguably above the curve, with three beneficial properties, including Finesse and Light, but only one die size downgrade from the Simple weapon base (though things don't really go below 1d4, so they're at the floor).

 

 

By going to rounds, all of the balancing is broken because speed is now largely irrelevant.  There is no advantage to using dagger, because it doesn't go any faster than a two-handed axe, but it does much less damage.

I mean, wasn't this the case with PnP or even classic IE? A dagger did 1d4 and you didn't get to go any more often than someone wielding a 2d4 bastard sword. I'm not saying that this was a good thing (I only understood it as a role-playing choice in BG/BG2 to be deliberately suboptimal), but how do newer TB or editions of D&D handle this?

 

 

In 5E D&D, weapon damage follows a fairly predictable formula.

 

First, there are two tiers of weapons, Simple and Martial; Simple weapons start at 1d6 damage, Martial weapons at 1d8.

 

In addition to damage, weapons have various properties, which can upgrade or downgrade their damage die. While not every weapon has a property, they typically get one beneficial property for free. So longswords (bastard swords are no longer separate) have the Versatile property, meaning they can be used either one or two handed; they're still 1d8 weapons in one hand, but they go up to 1d10 two-handed.

 

The Light property, which allows weapons to be dual wielded by default, and the Finesse property, which allows attackers to use Dexterity instead of Strength for their attack and damage rolls, are particularly relevant to this discussion; these almost always comes with a damage downgrade (the only two Light Martial weapons are also Finesse, and do 1d6 damage instead of 1d8, which is consistent with getting one property for free and losing a die size for the second; one is Finesse only and keeps the 1d8 die size; one has Finesse and Reach and does only 1d4. Simple weapons include four Light weapons that take a damage downgrade to 1d4, including the Sickle and Club which have no other properties, but also the Handaxe, which has an additional property but keeps 1d6 damage).

 

Finesse and Light are both fairly desirable properties in this system in spite of the damage die tradeoff: Dexterity is a better stat than Strength outside of melee offense, so sacrificing a bit of damage on your weapon to be able to focus on a better attribute is a worthwhile tradeoff. Dual wielding is good in action economy terms: it's one of the easiest ways to get a damage dealing Bonus Action (you get one Action and one Bonus Action per turn; non-martial classes never get more than one attack per Action and only high level Fighters get more than two attacks per action, so a Bonus Action attack is a big boost to DPR).

 

Daggers specifically are still bad, but this is mostly because they're Simple weapons and any character that frequently attacks with a weapon will find a way to get a Martial weapon. As Simple weapons go they're arguably above the curve, with three beneficial properties, including Finesse and Light, but only one die size downgrade from the Simple weapon base (though things don't really go below 1d4, so they're at the floor).

 

 

interesting. in many ways that sounds like how deadfire structures its weapons (e.g. avg 12 dmg for "fast" weapons, 16 dmg for "slow" weapons, with one free weapon trait, and then damage/PEN downgrades as you add on other stuff), just over-optimized for RTwP.

 

would be curious to see what changes (hopefully some) come down the line for TB mode.

I have been out of the pen and paper scene for a while, but ISTR that Pathfinder, D&D, etc. are all "one character round per turn" systems, like Deadfire TB-mode. Can someone explain like I'm dumb what's wrong with Deadfire's approach, because it seems analogous (and is based on an adaptation of the one character round per turn system into real-time via infinity engine)? I'm not saying that continuous turn based or tick system is bad--I loved playing Final Fantasy Tactics and enjoyed HoMM--just wondering what the reason why people feel that Deadfire needs to be like that versus the "once/turn" systems.

 

There are Pen & Paper systems which use tick-based systems. If you use some sort of tracker - improvised or a payed supplement -  it doesn´t really slow the game down. White Wolfs Exalted and Scion are two examples.

 

Just as an example, this is the tracker Spittermond uses:

 

https://splittermond.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Splittermond_Tickleiste.jpg

 

PoE 2 RtwP basically is a tick system, just in realtime. It don´t hate Obsidians aproach - in fact I am enyoing it quite a bit, but I wish they would have gone for a tick - based system. In my opinion PoEs system would translate better.

 

From my experience with conventional round systems like D&D 5 for instance vs tick-based systems is that the later allows for a more nuanced weapon balance (amongst other things). Weapons feel more like their counterpart in reality.

 

By going to rounds, all of the balancing is broken because speed is now largely irrelevant.  There is no advantage to using dagger, because it doesn't go any faster than a two-handed axe, but it does much less damage.

I mean, wasn't this the case with PnP or even classic IE? A dagger did 1d4 and you didn't get to go any more often than someone wielding a 2d4 bastard sword. I'm not saying that this was a good thing (I only understood it as a role-playing choice in BG/BG2 to be deliberately suboptimal), but how do newer TB or editions of D&D handle this?

 

 

Yup, in the original D+D etc this was the case... bigger weapons were simply better than small/fast weapons... the compensation was class weapon limits.  So Fighter could use swords (1d8), Cleric could use maces(1d6), mages could use daggers (1d4) etc.

 

As explained above, the newer round based pen and paper system were more nuanced, using weapon proficiencies etc to balance rather than classes... but still basically limiting access to the 'good' weapons.

 

In the RTwP game the basic balancing act was speed vs damage (which better than any round based system imo), which didn't require a hard limit on weapons... but that is pretty much broken under a round based approach.

Kind of late to the thread, but I agree with most of what's been said here.

 

As for 'tick' vs. 'hard turns', I don't prefer either one on general principle but I think 'tick' is more appropriate for adapting RTWP to turn-based. More of the existing game balance is preserved, which is good as the existing balance is the one that's been refined and iterated upon.