[Merged] Non-casters Need To Have Interesting Choices In Combat

[Audiocide]

That assumption would require major ignorance between the game mechanics of a action game and a strategy/action hybrid like the IE games.

 

I've played WoW, though I haven't really spent that much time on it. From what I gathered, it was trying to sort of equalize the combat strength of all classes so that none of them were too weak one-on-one with each other.

 

I'm saying that in a hardcore RPG, it makes the game more interesting if all the classes have distinct roles. For instance: a rogue can't realistically take on a warrior of the same level, but can have devastating backstab attacks and then disappear back into the shadows or get away and rain arrows from a distance.

 

I think the 3rd Ed. rules (at least as they were implemented in the CRPGs I've played) made the classes somewhat less distinct from each other. It did fix some things, however.

 

Abilities such as hamstring makes sense for rogues, and flurry makes sense for fighters, as long as they don't make the two classes indistinguishable apart from the lockpicking ability.

[Odarbi]

I'm perfectly fine with options like Knockbacks, Trips, Hamstrings, Quick movement like charge/leap, and even taunt style abilities

 

The bolded part is the sort of utility that I'm interested in. But 'taunt' as in 'threat mechanic'? No thanks, I'd rather the fighters soak up damage as the player make use of party positioning (casters way in the back); exploit the terrain (bottlenecks) and make use of aforementioned crowd control abilities to keep enemies from charging into the mage.

 

Quick movement also worries me. It can be too quick and break the dynamics of party positioning.

 

I did mean taunt as a "forcing an enemy to attack someone else for a pre-determined amount of time" type mechanic, but I don't think the ability wouldn't take away from strategic combat a whole lot if the ability has limited uses per combat/day, and/or a long cooldown between uses. In fact, if it's done right, I would say it would add even more depth to the combat, because your decision becomes "Should I use this now, or wait? Will I find a better time to use this in the next round?" much like the decision of using your last fireball when you're playing Baldurs Gate. The same goes for quick movement abilities, or even just all special abilities in general. I'm not looking for this game to become WoW, but I do believe that high level warriors need something to keep them from feeling boring at higher levels.

 

Special abilities are nice, but they should never outweigh proper battlefield management or make proper positioning and tactics obsolete.

[twincast]

Well, the core problem lies in priests and mages in classic D&D accumulating a spell selection that borders on the ridiculous while thieves and fighters get ... naught.

My solution? Have a broad selection of spells, but don't go anywhere near the hundreds, and give the magic-less some nice useful special attacks, feints, blocks and dodges that make sense.

But no D&D4e or DA2 fancy physical abilities that are magical in all but name, please; not ever.

[Delterius]

I'm perfectly fine with options like Knockbacks, Trips, Hamstrings, Quick movement like charge/leap, and even taunt style abilities

 

The bolded part is the sort of utility that I'm interested in. But 'taunt' as in 'threat mechanic'? No thanks, I'd rather the fighters soak up damage as the player make use of party positioning (casters way in the back); exploit the terrain (bottlenecks) and make use of aforementioned crowd control abilities to keep enemies from charging into the mage.

 

Quick movement also worries me. It can be too quick and break the dynamics of party positioning.

 

I did mean taunt as a "forcing an enemy to attack someone else for a pre-determined amount of time" type mechanic, but I don't think the ability wouldn't take away from strategic combat a whole lot if the ability has limited uses per combat/day, and/or a long cooldown between uses.

 

No thank you, threat mechanics never made sense and always simplified party dynamics. And if its not even present in most encounters would mean that encounters wouldn't be designed around it.

[Audiocide]

Well, the core problem lies in priests and mages in classic D&D accumulating a spell selection that borders on the ridiculous while thieves and fighters get ... naught.

My solution? Have a broad selection of spells, but don't go anywhere near the hundreds, and give the magic-less some nice useful special attacks, feints, blocks and dodges that make sense.

But no D&D4e or DA2 fancy physical abilities that are magical in all but name, please; not ever.

 

You put it more eloquently than I have. Thanks.

[Odarbi]

I'm perfectly fine with options like Knockbacks, Trips, Hamstrings, Quick movement like charge/leap, and even taunt style abilities

 

The bolded part is the sort of utility that I'm interested in. But 'taunt' as in 'threat mechanic'? No thanks, I'd rather the fighters soak up damage as the player make use of party positioning (casters way in the back); exploit the terrain (bottlenecks) and make use of aforementioned crowd control abilities to keep enemies from charging into the mage.

 

Quick movement also worries me. It can be too quick and break the dynamics of party positioning.

 

I did mean taunt as a "forcing an enemy to attack someone else for a pre-determined amount of time" type mechanic, but I don't think the ability wouldn't take away from strategic combat a whole lot if the ability has limited uses per combat/day, and/or a long cooldown between uses.

 

No thank you, threat mechanics never made sense and always simplified party dynamics. And if its not even present in most encounters would mean that encounters wouldn't be designed around it.

 

I think you're misunderstanding what I was suggesting when I said "taunt". I don't want threat mechanics like you would see in WoW or whatever. It was just an idea for a utility skill to make an enemy prioritize one target for a short duration before his AI takes over again. You've got an ogre attacking your mage, and you have a fighter use his "taunt" ability to make it want to attack him for a short time so your mage doesn't get squished and has time to retreat a little. You "taunt" to get a ranged enemy to shoot at couple arrows at you instead of your nearly dead healer. Once the "taunt" is over, the enemies are free to go back to whatever they were doing. They wouldn't be tied to the fighter until someone else did more damage than him or anything. It'd really be no different than a wizard using a short duration charm spell on the enemy to make him view your party as allies for 5 seconds before he goes back to shooting your guys in the face.

[Delterius]

It may not be a threat mechanic, but my issues with it still stand. For one, a taunt was never, ever needed in any IE game.

 

You're supposed to prevent that ogre from attacking your mage. Squishy characters shouldn't be in the thick of battle for one, and they should have resources to be less squishy (even if temporary). These were both true for the IE games. If anything, I 'tanked' with my single classed mages a couple of times in BG2.

 

Furthermore, the taunt mechanic still doesn't make sense. So people insult you during a battle and flail their arms around? I suppose that happens rather often and it may be distracting, but to change targets altogether? Maybe if you're fighting a bear, but still not guaranteed.

[Odarbi]

Taunting as a mechanic makes plenty of sense. You attempt provoke or challenge someone. They either take the challenge or ignore it. The fact that it was "never ever needed in any IE game" doesn't mean it's a terrible idea to add or some sort of hideous addition to the game. It's a tool you can use, just like any spell you might have, to affect the outcome of battle. It's there to help prevent that ogre from attacking your mage in a situation where he gets feared during combat, runs away, and finds the thing wandering in the forest.

[Audiocide]

just like any spell you might have

 

I think this is the problem right there. The fighter is not a mage.

 

The guy you're fighting is probably going for your mage, because he's the one who can do the most damage in the shortest time. He's not going to give up the juicy opportunity just because your fighter is yelling from the side. It's the mage's job to cast charm, fear, hold, slow, stoneskin, etc. so that he doesn't get squashed.

[Odarbi]

just like any spell you might have

 

I think this is the problem right there. The fighter is not a mage.

 

Given that they're talking in the Kickstarter video about a person's soul being a source of power, and a soul being tied to magic, a taunt could actually be magical in nature in this world.

 

Simply not liking the idea does not make it invalid or "not make sense".

[Audiocide]

Given that they're talking in the Kickstarter video about a person's soul being a source of power, and a soul being tied to magic, a taunt could actually be magical in nature in this world.

 

Simply not liking the idea does not make it invalid or "not make sense".

 

I never said the idea is invalid. However, you are just reaching about the taunts being magical.

 

Actually, why would you want your fighters to have quasi-magical abilities? Is this because of the style of games you're used to playing, or a desire to have your player character be more powerful overall?

Edited September 15, 2012 by Audiocide

[J.E. Sawyer]

I also believe that all types of characters should have a good range of options from moment-to-moment in combat. I think that IWD2 and (especially) ToEE gave fighters (for example) more to do than BG and IWD and I think that was a good thing. While target selection, battlefield placement, and weapon selection are tactical considerations, if those are the only choices I make for a character (even in a party-based game), that's not very deep or satisfying, IMO.

[Enoch]

Taunting as a mechanic makes plenty of sense. You attempt provoke or challenge someone. They either take the challenge or ignore it. The fact that it was "never ever needed in any IE game" doesn't mean it's a terrible idea to add or some sort of hideous addition to the game. It's a tool you can use, just like any spell you might have, to affect the outcome of battle. It's there to help prevent that ogre from attacking your mage in a situation where he gets feared during combat, runs away, and finds the thing wandering in the forest.

Most of my experience with a threat mechanic has been in DA:O, so, to the extent that said game is atypical, this may be off-base. But it infuriated me in that game.

 

The game didn't support formation-based tactics much at all (probably because they're tough to pull off with a gamepad), but they wanted to give the players a means to protect the 'squishier' folks in the party. Thus, a 'threat mechanic.' Which worked as an invisible variable that exerted mind control on every opponent the party faced. Everything, from the most disciplined combat veterans, to packs of wolves, to mindless undead and constructs had their tactical decisions driven by this gamey mechanic rather than (AI simulated) rational (or irrational) thought. It smashed any illusion that our opponents were anything other than AI algorithms.

 

A pure "taunt" ability to redirect the focus of an enemy has a little bit of verisimilitude, I guess. But the chance of success should probably be quite low in most situations, and it shouldn't work at all on any enemy who lacks the capacity to understand whatever means of communication is used to convey the taunt.

 

But, most importantly, as gamepad support probably isn't going to be a major concern, there really isn't much reason not to use tactical positioning as the primary means of controlling which characters end up going toe-to-claw with the enemy.

[Odarbi]

Given that they're talking in the Kickstarter video about a person's soul being a source of power, and a soul being tied to magic, a taunt could actually be magical in nature in this world.

 

Simply not liking the idea does not make it invalid or "not make sense".

 

I never said the idea is invalid. However, you are just reaching about the taunts being magical.

 

Actually, why would you want your fighters to have quasi-magical abilities? Is this because of the style of games you're used to playing, or a desire to have your player character be more powerful overall?

 

My statement about it not being invalid was meant as a general statement, not a targeted response.

 

As for how and why I might want a fighter to have quasi-magical abilities? I don't. I do think they need some options and/or abilities open to them, though.

 

You might be taking my replies as a vehement desire to have a taunt effect. As I've said earlier, I don't want threat mechanics. However, this is a discussion chat about how non-casters need to have interesting abilities so that they're not just "good with swords". I simply listed some examples of possible skills that could be in the game, and have been explaining how the one that was dismissed right out the gate can actually exist, how it could work, and how it might make sense given what was said in the Kickstarter video.

[Odarbi]

A pure "taunt" ability to redirect the focus of an enemy has a little bit of verisimilitude, I guess. But the chance of success should probably be quite low in most situations, and it shouldn't work at all on any enemy who lacks the capacity to understand whatever means of communication is used to convey the taunt.

 

Quite agreed. Looking at it in terms of D&D 3.5 rules, I was thinking something like the Knight's Test of Mettle ability. "Any target of this ability must have a language of some sort and an Intelligence score of 5 or higher. Creatures that do not meet these requirements are immune to the test of mettle. Creatures that are affected then make a will save to resist the effect"

[Humanoid]

As a former long-term WoW player, I know all too much about the travails of threat management system, right from the birth and development of the threat meter concept which came about in vanilla WoW. It's something I definitely don't want to see in a single player RPG. At the same time though, I don't want to have to micromanage positioning throughout combat, especially given the AI (assuming you're giving it some control of your party) mightn't agree with you about what a sound tactical positioning entails.

 

To an extent you can sort of offset this by either having an active "protect" role for a character you would have act as a sort of bodyguard for your rear ranks, or just implement a passive mechanic for nearby characters. The idea, broadly, is to abstract the effect of a harassing defender on an enemy trying to make a surgical strike on your rear ranks. When in range/adjacent to your mage for example, a hostile would suffer a significant penalty to their chance of hitting said mage if they're currently being hit by your fighter.

 

 

More generally, the mechanic can simply be applied as a passive effect to *any* combat actor being hit by more than one other actor at a given time.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Humanoid

[Enoch]

To an extent you can sort of offset this by either having an active "protect" role for a character you would have act as a sort of bodyguard for your rear ranks, or just implement a passive mechanic for nearby characters. The idea, broadly, is to abstract the effect of a harassing defender on an enemy trying to make a surgical strike on your rear ranks. When in range/adjacent to your mage for example, a hostile would suffer a significant penalty to their chance of hitting said mage if they're currently being hit by your fighter.

 

 

More generally, the mechanic can simply be applied as a passive effect to *any* combat actor being hit by more than one other actor at a given time.

 

I think I'd be on board with that.

[Audiocide]

A pure "taunt" ability to redirect the focus of an enemy has a little bit of verisimilitude, I guess. But the chance of success should probably be quite low in most situations, and it shouldn't work at all on any enemy who lacks the capacity to understand whatever means of communication is used to convey the taunt.

 

Quite agreed. Looking at it in terms of D&D 3.5 rules, I was thinking something like the Knight's Test of Mettle ability. "Any target of this ability must have a language of some sort and an Intelligence score of 5 or higher. Creatures that do not meet these requirements are immune to the test of mettle. Creatures that are affected then make a will save to resist the effect"

 

I'm not at all opposed to fighers or rogues having special abilities. It's just the nonsensical, miasmic flask type abilities that seem unnecessary to me.

 

I was about to add what you just mentioned in my previous post. I can't recall the Test of Mettle ability of the top of my head, but it makes a lot more sense to me. I mean: you could try to taunt or distract someone who's about to smash your mage, but if it's a golem...

 

I'd also rather have characters having class related abilities. Rogues having disabling abilities, but not being strong fighters, etc.

 

All in all, I have faith in the developers. These guys made the games I'm talking about.

[PsychoBlonde]

Honestly, I just don't want to get to the point where my fighter feels like he's only there to get hit and carry all the heavy stuff the casters can't.

 

DDO has a *plethora* of active and mode tactical stuff for non-mages. I'll list out some of them:

 

Stunning Blow

Trip

Sunder

Assassinate

Feint

Block

Smite

Diplomacy

Intimidate

 

They don't have to be "mystical" abilities to be active things you can do that produce results other than "I chip away at the health bar until it's all gone". A lot of those are great for dealing with enemy casters--you're not casting if you're flat on your butt or stunned.

 

I'd like to see viable party makeups that contain NO spellcasters. Or ALL spellcasters.

[Delterius]

I'd like to see viable party makeups that contain NO spellcasters. Or ALL spellcasters.

 

That was doable in the IE games, so I wouldn't worry too much.

[Volourn]

Yup. There should be skills/abiltiies/options for trip, disarm, called shots, and the like in battle. This should be obvious.

[Infinitron]

I also believe that all types of characters should have a good range of options from moment-to-moment in combat. I think that IWD2 and (especially) ToEE gave fighters (for example) more to do than BG and IWD and I think that was a good thing. While target selection, battlefield placement, and weapon selection are tactical considerations, if those are the only choices I make for a character (even in a party-based game), that's not very deep or satisfying, IMO.

 

Well, your opinion is what counts, hmmm?

 

3E-style abilities are a decent compromise. It's really only "spell-like abilities" that ruin it for me.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Infinitron

[Sarog]

I like the idea of activated modes for fighter characters. The likes of power attack, combat expertise, etc that can address how your character chooses to engage his enemy in the particular moments, but that aren't spell-analogue maneuvers like a whirlwind attack or whatever. I always play warrior classes in RPGs cRPGs and MMORPGs, and while it does get boring to just click and autoattack, I'm not too keen on going too far in the opposite direction. Dragon Age 2 made me feel way too much like I was aping a dps rotation. If I'm tactically managing a party, I don't really want to jump between my melee guys every few seconds to make sure that they are firing mortal strike, heroic thrust, and ragey blow in the optimium dps order. Ideally for me, playing a fighter could be made more dynamic through adding a depth of combat modes that you don't just sit in, but stance-dance with for maximum effect. Especially if the system can encourage you to play with more than one weapon, rather than just max out greatsword perks and stay married to to that one weapon for the duration of the game.

 

If a combat experience could involve keeping foes at bay with a polearm while party members position themselves, switching to longsword and buckler to close in, fighting defensively with the shield while party members take down foes, taking the longsword in two hands for an aggressive stance as the enemy numbers dwindle, and then using feints and precise strikes on a heavily armoured opponent... even if it just auto-attacking while I just concentrate on switching my combat modes from minute to minute, that's great. A great depth of hotkey abilities is less important to me than a depth of modes describing how I am fighting in a particular situation and what tactical benefit I derive from it.

[P10]

I liked the combat options for fighters in ToEE (D&D 3rd ed? or was it 3.5) - for the most part, you were there to hit things hard and soak hits, but you had a decent variety of combat options besides full attacking - trip, disarm, bull rush, etc.

 

homogenized 'spell-like' abilities for fighters is kinda lame though

Edited September 16, 2012 by P10

[Tauron]

Dont take away spell diversity just becouse non casters dont feel dynamic enough. I loved playing a mage in BG, IWD,Arcanum becouse it was easiest most powerfull class and most squishiest. It was all about executing the right combo...one moment you are demigod and owning the battle and having that evil laugh! Than you choke on it as your mirrorimage is spent and you just "lost concentration" miscasting invisibility as you contemplate your next move. I could go on and on...dont take away awsomness that have been casters in previous games...build on it. Let us design our own spells. I want my spellbook to be my most valuable possesion, etc.

 

Whn playing Dragon Age one of coolest things about melee class is that you could see blocking and dodging from time to time, (not just numbers) just made it much more fun and finishing moves, that was beautifull. Cutting head of opponent and than gracefully executing another attack, was almost cinemattic. I agree that warriors need to feel more like warriors and be more dynamic while rogue class needs more roguish activities. I would love to see special mission onlyen your rogue could do, inflitrating, thieving, dirty tricks, making your own spy network sort of...etc. My point, just add more dynamic abilities to mele classes. Use what works and build upon it )