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

[Vaeliorin]

I know this game is inspired by the like of BG, PS:T, IWD, etc., but I hope we'll avoid the major failing of a lot of older games (and even a number of modern ones) where casters have interesting choices to make in combat, but the only choice non-casters have is who to attack (and maybe which weapon to hit them with, but that's usually not something that you have to worry about that often.)

 

Regardless of what the system used is like, non-casters need to have active combat abilities that can help to turn the tide of a combat just as much as those of a caster can. Obviously I don't mean the exact same situations (casters would presumably have massive area of effects, healing, etc.) but when used appropriately, non-caster's abilities should be just as important/helpful in allowing the team to be successful.

 

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.

[Audiocide]

I respectfully disagree.

 

A 2nd Ed. D&D fighter can pack a wallop, and doesn't need abilities, talents, or whatever.

 

And a thief is not supposed to go toe-to-toe with a fighter, but backstab mages, poison fighters, and set traps. That's why he's a thief and not just a dual-wield fighter who can pick locks.

 

3rd Ed. rules homogenized the classes a little bit, but please no mystical abilites for classes for which they make no sense.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Audiocide

[Humodour]

This. Single-class fighters were the most BORING choice in IE games. And single-classed thieves weren't much better.

 

Edit: I guess 3E improved things a bit.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Krezack

[Emitan]

Hamstrings to cripple opponents, leaps to close gaps, whirling to hit multiple foes... There's a lot melee classes should be able to do besides autoattacking until their target is dead.

[Humanoid]

Can't really lean either way until we learn just how fine grained our control over the NPC's is. Yes, the fighter traditionally doesn't require a lot of micromanagement in this type of game, but whether that's a virtue depends on whether it's the only thing you're doing, or one of half-a-dozen actors you're directing. Mages having the wand autoattack in DAO was something I liked in this context, as opposed to the babysitting you'd need to do in the IE games.

[Audiocide]

Hamstrings to cripple opponents, leaps to close gaps, whirling to hit multiple foes... There's a lot melee classes should be able to do besides autoattacking until their target is dead.

 

So, basically WoW?

[Rubarack]

Hamstrings to cripple opponents, leaps to close gaps, whirling to hit multiple foes... There's a lot melee classes should be able to do besides autoattacking until their target is dead.

 

So, basically WoW?

 

I'd be happy with that. WoW got a lot of things wrong but class design wasn't one of them. That said within the context of a tactical RPG using real time with pause there's a lot to be said far characters that don't need much babysitting.

[Oerwinde]

I would like more than just combat options to make fighter type characters interesting.

[Audiocide]

Hamstrings to cripple opponents, leaps to close gaps, whirling to hit multiple foes... There's a lot melee classes should be able to do besides autoattacking until their target is dead.

 

So, basically WoW?

 

I'd be happy with that. WoW got a lot of things wrong but class design wasn't one of them. That said within the context of a tactical RPG using real time with pause there's a lot to be said far characters that don't need much babysitting.

 

I don't think WoW is an RPG at all, in the strictest sense of the term. In that game, they were concerned about making all the classes pretty much equally useful in a fight, so that none of them felt weak.

 

Take a thief for instance:

 

Why would he have the fighting skills of a veteran fighter who's fought all sorts of orcs, bandits, etc. when all the combat he ever saw was getting in a bar fight or shanking someone in a back alley?

 

It doesn't make sense for that character to have whirling or leaping moves. It does, however, make sense for him to know how to sneak, pick pockets, and disarm traps.

 

He could, for instance, pick the lock on a door, disarm the traps, get behind the most powerful enemy before he's spotted, stab him in the back, and get out while the fighters take over.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Audiocide

[Sensuki]

Shoot me if the combat is anything like WoW or Dragon Age. no thanks.

[Baeus]

Not WoW or Dragon Age, but in Baldur's Gate, the warrior types pretty much marched in and wailed on the monsters, you watch the numbers tick down, and pick a new target for them when something dies. In my mind, rather boring compared to the caster types where you kept picking out spells and using new abilities all the time.

 

But then, a lot of that was the limitations of the D&D ruleset. In the early levels, fighters and the like were the ones who did all the real work, and the wizards had two rounds where they could do stuff and then had to hide in the back, hoping that a housecat wouldn't claw them across the ankles cause they only had 4 hp. Then in the high levels, caster types were unstoppable gods and the fighters were just there to help carry the wizard's loot.

 

Basically, just let fighters and their kin do more than autoattack please

Edited September 15, 2012 by Baeus

[mkreku]

I agree.

 

I'm not overly fond of turn based combat, but if it's well done (like in Silent Storm or Jagged Alliance 2) I can live with it. BUT.. I hate when games have a lot of magic. Magic sucks, it's the weakest excuse ever in story telling. Give me viable melee alternatives and I might be able to play this game too.

 

And why would giving melee fighters combat alternatives turn this game into World of Warcraft? This is why I hate old school dinosaurs. They're afraid of change. ANY change. Still stuck in their rose tinted memories of Planescape: Torment from decades ago. The entire WoW argument is so stupid it's sickening.

 

And why did you have to make YET ANOTHER MAGICAL FANTASY GAME?? Sigh.

[Audiocide]

I agree.

 

I'm not overly fond of turn based combat, but if it's well done (like in Silent Storm or Jagged Alliance 2) I can live with it. BUT.. I hate when games have a lot of magic. Magic sucks, it's the weakest excuse ever in story telling. Give me viable melee alternatives and I might be able to play this game too.

 

And why would giving melee fighters combat alternatives turn this game into World of Warcraft? This is why I hate old school dinosaurs. They're afraid of change. ANY change. Still stuck in their rose tinted memories of Planescape: Torment from decades ago. The entire WoW argument is so stupid it's sickening.

 

And why did you have to make YET ANOTHER MAGICAL FANTASY GAME?? Sigh.

 

I think this game is being made primarily for old school dinosaurs, and to introduce youngsters to deeper RPGs. I don't think they're going for an action-RPG.

 

Have you actually played the Icewind Dale or Baldur's Gate series? Fighters did not have abilities you had to press the number keys for. Their combat alternatives actually came from how you leveled and configured them.

 

Torment, on the other hand, wasn't about fighting at all.

 

I don't have anything against WoW or any other game mentioned here. But I'm not looking for that kind of thing when I choose to back Project Infinity on Kickstarter. From what I gathered, it's not what Obsidian is going for either.

 

Why so hateful?

Edited September 15, 2012 by Audiocide

[WorstUsernameEver]

I don't see why old-school dinosaurs would be against having fighters actually have tactical options that go beyond how you equip them. That's one of the things I enjoyed of Dragon Age: Origins, with all the limits that ruleset and combat system had.

[Sensuki]

Yeah I won't mind at all if all you're required to do with the melee fighters is just click on an enemy. It is the premeditation beforehand that matters.

 

I just don't like the new 'roles' style of play where you have tanks, dps/carries and supports (MMOs, D&D 4th Ed) [although I love dota!].

 

To be honest I don't really care as long as the system is good and it requires mastery of the rules and mechanics to learn.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Sensuki

[Audiocide]

I don't see why old-school dinosaurs would be against having fighters actually have tactical options that go beyond how you equip them. That's one of the things I enjoyed of Dragon Age: Origins, with all the limits that ruleset and combat system had.

 

I've actually recently completed Dragon Age, and just started DA2. I'm liking this one better so far.

 

From a strict roleplaying perspective, the whirlwind and miasmic flask abilities are a little silly. I'm not looking for strict roleplaying in this game, since it's pretty much established that this is the best we're going to get in a CRPG.

 

But if I have a choice, I'd pick the 2nd Ed. style of game where the classes had more realistic roles. I don't feel obligated to be the strongest fighter in my party. If I wanted that, I'd have played as a fighter.

 

To clarify: I'm not strictly against special attacks or abilities for any of the classes. Just nothing that turns the rogue into a warrior or a mage, for instance.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Audiocide

[WorstUsernameEver]

It's not about being the strongest, it's about not having a couple of characters or more go on auto-play because most people obviously don't find that very interesting.

 

And I'm not sure what the animations have anything to do with it. You can easily have different/less over-the-top animation/visual flair for abilities with the same tactical purpose.

[mkreku]

Why so hateful?

...deeper RPGs.

 

This. We've had this discussion a billion times on these boards already.

 

I'm sorry to say things that may collide awkwardly with your image of yourself, but turn-based does not make a game "deeper". It doesn't make you, as a player, more intelligent. Neither does isometric views.

 

Storytelling, choice and consequences, mature themes, all of those are independent of combat systems and camera angle.

 

Have you actually played the Icewind Dale or Baldur's Gate series? Fighters did not have abilities you had to press the number keys for. Their combat alternatives actually came from how you leveled and configured them.

 

Torment, on the other hand, wasn't about fighting at all.

 

I did. And in all these games, melee fighters were bound to dress appropriately, press attack and then.. wait. Hope for a critical. Got one. Woo. Maybe drink a potion. Fight over. Yay.

 

I'm sure they will not trample on your mental idolization of Planescape: Torment if they give melee fighters a few options in combat.

[mkreku]

...and it requires mastery of the rules and mechanics to learn.

 

Meta-gamers unite! Why isn't the over aged orc larper here already? He would love this crowd.

[Infinitron]

The traditional D&D fighter is basically a grunt infantryman. His purpose is to hold the line (in before Mass Effect).

 

Have you ever played one of the Total War games? If you have, you'd know that manipulating your heavy infantry to hold the line is a fun tactical challenge in and of itself. They don't need shiny special abilities. Remember that this is a party-based game and you are not controlling one single character.

[Solivagant]

Check out Temple of Elemental Evil for some great combat options for fighters. There's a lot of depth.

[Delterius]

Hamstrings to cripple opponents, leaps to close gaps, whirling to hit multiple foes... There's a lot melee classes should be able to do besides autoattacking until their target is dead.

 

So, basically WoW?

 

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

 

Check out Temple of Elemental Evil for some great combat options for fighters. There's a lot of depth.

 

I'm surprised it took this long to note the existance of something other than 2nd ed.

[Rosbjerg]

Thread pruned a bit.. Let's stay on topic please.

[Odarbi]

When it comes to giving Non-casters special abilities, I do feel somewhat compelled to agree... but I don't think they really *need* damage abilities. As much as some people might want their warriors to Whirlwind all the things, I'm perfectly fine with options like Knockbacks, Trips, Hamstrings, Quick movement like charge/leap, and even taunt style abilities. If non-caster special abilities really do become a thing in the final game, It'd be nice if there was a means of customizing which abilities each character did get so that you're not stuck with 2 warriors who both have the exact same abilities, unless you really wanted them too.

 

The idea of having one warrior built for front line battlefield control while another is set up for more of a shock trooper/mage hunter style, with each having completely different special abilities, could definitely improve longevity and/or re-playability of the game

[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.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Delterius