Jump to content

Instant Death


Recommended Posts

Instant death spells are alright if they require a lot of magic or have a high risk or reward. I'm all for adding a bunch of spells, status effects, ailments that troll the hell out of the player. Sometimes it can be a thrill getting completely destroyed and stomped to the ground because you fail to capitalize on enemies mistakes and they turn the tables in their favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being instantly killed because you've wandered off the friendly portion of the map at level 2 and ran into something waaay too strong for you I'm ok with being 1 shot. Later you can come back and fight on equal terms with those badies. However things like disintegrate aren't really interesting or challenging for me, just frustrating. Knowing that a monster cast a spell at my party members and all I can do is count on a dice roll to save me is a bland experience. If you want insta-gib spells or attacks they should all be dodge-able by having a noticeable casting animation or signal where they will land so that they can be avoided. This would at least allow you a fair chance to avoid said spells and challenge you in combat to keep tight control over your party since you'd have to battle while keeping these sorts of things in mind.

Edited by Pshaw
  • Like 4

K is for Kid, a guy or gal just like you. Don't be in such a hurry to grow up, since there's nothin' a kid can't do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I fall into the camp that likes the inclusion of instant-death spells. I like the fear-factor they can bring to certain encounters. I think they are only fun if used sparingly however. If every other enemy you meet is a mage casting disintegrate then it gets a little dull but to not have any of these abilities in the game would be a shame imo.

 

There are several good alternatives though. The best simply being limited HP bloat. If there are no instant-death spells then there needs to be other ways for my party to die. If I never feel in danger then I never feel the drama or tension of combat, it's merely a mini-game along the plot-line.

 

I'd like to see some VERY nasty traps in dungeons, possibly instant-death (through massive damage) or very fast poison perhaps.

 

Soemthing I and a few others have mentioned before is for there to be a social stigma attached to the use of some spells. Spells that could be considered evil or taboo. Spells that might result in a cadre of Paladins hunting you down at some later date or meaning some merchants will refuse to trade with you until you have been cleansed.

 

Perhaps instant-death spells could come at a cost to the caster, hp, all of your mana, other debuff.

 

I don't mind them being in there but I'd like to see them as more than just another spell. Harry Potter had the instant death spell as one of the "unforgivable curses" and would result in instant incarceration.

Crit happens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several good alternatives though. The best simply being limited HP bloat. If there are no instant-death spells then there needs to be other ways for my party to die. If I never feel in danger then I never feel the drama or tension of combat, it's merely a mini-game along the plot-line.

There's a significant difference between the potential for swift, even instantaneous single-hit death, and a simple ability whose effect = absolute death. I really, honestly don't mind single-hit death at all. It's the overly simplified method by which its determined that negates choice-making and reactivity on both the player's AND game's part.

 

Look at the original Super Mario Brothers. If you touch an enemy (without jumping atop it, if it's jump-on-able), you die. If you don't touch an enemy, you don't die. Simple as that. Look how uncomplex that game was. Even then, you had mushrooms, so you technically had 1 hitpoint by default, and COULD have 2 hitpoints (if you were Big Mario). So, even that had a way to mitigate instant-death effects. And, even keeping Mario from touching a Goomba offers more tactical control than the same thing would have in P:E, since you had full, real-time "puppet" control of Mario's every action and movement. What if you just commanded Mario to move forward, or backward, and whenever he got to a Goomba, he had a 50% chance of touching it, and a 50% chance of actually jumping over it? How badly would Super Mario Brothers suck then? Very badly.

 

Plus, there's the lessened gravity of such spells/effects. "OMG, YOU JUST BURNED OUT THAT GUY'S SOUL! Now we're gonna hafta fast travel back to town, after this battle, and pay like 5 gold to have a Cleric splice it back into his body, u_u... *hands on hips in exasperation*". Wow. Some uber-powerful necromancer that was, huh? He could've just charged you a toll. Ability's not so scary when it's just a temporary inconvenience. Okay, so let's make it permanent. Well, now you've got a dice roll between you and not-using that unique companion (for which OODLES of lines of dialogue, and scripts, and animations, and effects upon the rest of the story and characters were written) for the rest of the playthrough. I'm betting 95% of players, at that point, would simply reload, and swallow their frustration as they hope the roll goes better THIS time when they face the necromancer. And with good reason.

 

So, yeah, it's not that something that can kill you instantaneously is problematic. It's that overly simplifying the use and striking capability of such an effect to one little value-checking dice roll is a problem. It's the odd man out in the midst of complex combat tactics, involving a multitude of ways in which to affect each and every strike and effect. "Not me," said the insta-death spell.

 

Honestly, a really good rule of thumb with anything in a complex combat system like this is to avoid any situation that can be reduced to a single reactive tactic. "If you see one of these, do this." In other words, "Make sure you cast 'Silence' on that necromancer" is not a good implementation, really. You're saying "How do you deal with that insta-death spell? Make sure it doesn't get cast." Or "Make sure you cast protection from insta-Death" or something. You've just countered an all-or-nothing effect with another all-or-nothing effect. You've doubled the amount of binary tactics in your combat system.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, a really good rule of thumb with anything in a complex combat system like this is to avoid any situation that can be reduced to a single reactive tactic. "If you see one of these, do this." In other words, "Make sure you cast 'Silence' on that necromancer" is not a good implementation, really. You're saying "How do you deal with that insta-death spell? Make sure it doesn't get cast." Or "Make sure you cast protection from insta-Death" or something. You've just countered an all-or-nothing effect with another all-or-nothing effect. You've doubled the amount of binary tactics in your combat system.

This is just silly reasoning.

 

It goes against Just about all decent RPG mechanics. Like speech skills, trap disarming, lock picking and summoning mechanics to name just a few. All of these are strictly pass-fail in their natures and all of them have a single, one-step, Act-react process.

 

Additionally, your "logic" forces a one dimensional spell system where the spells themselves are unimaginitive and essentially no different than standard weapon attacks with shiny colors.

 

No friggin thanks. If I want what you're peddling, I'll just go play Skyrim, or Dragon Age. Or Witcher 2.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't compare skills like lock picking and trap disarming to actual combat. They play only a minor role in games, and are something the player doesn't want to concern himself with too much. Combat on the other hand, is a major element of the game. 

While I don't mind some insta-death dice rolling, I wouldn't say there aren't better ways to deal with deathspells. Although it also depends how much power you give the element of chance in your game. Obviously, Obsidian wants things to be more deterministic.

Edited by Iucounu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't compare skills like lock picking and trap disarming to actual combat. They play only a minor role in games, and are something the player doesn't want to concern himself with too much. Combat on the other hand, is a major element of the game.

You're stating an opinion as fact. We are discussing conflicts/conflict resolutions in RPGs. And the masses are NOT a monolithic entity with regards to which specific conflicts they want to see more or less of. This is why People love Planescape Torment (Conversation heavy but combat light), and Icewind dale (combat heavy, conversation light) and Baldurs Gate (coversation, combat, and trap heavy. Nothing light. Seriously, there's practically an EXACTLY equal distribution of traps vs. enemies in Durlag's tower for example, and many people here have called it the greatest cRPG dungeon experience ever)

 

But this all misses the point. Lephy's gripe was the so-called Binary Nature of Save-or-Die. My examples are just there to prove that the entire conflict-resolution system in classic RPGs is fueled by this binary nature, yet he doesn't seem to have a problem with anything else... just save or die.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this all misses the point. Lephy's gripe was the so-called Binary Nature of Save-or-Die. My examples are just there to prove that the entire conflict-resolution system in classic RPGs is fueled by this binary nature, yet he doesn't seem to have a problem with anything else... just save or die.

I love how it's now "so-called." Would you at least please make up your mind? First, it IS binary, but that's okay, because look at all the other stuff that's binary! But ALSO, you're not even sure what I'm referring to is binary?

 

You're missing the point, and taking things out of context. You wanna compare what I said to lockpicking? All right. You're in a dungeon with 15 locks. It's you versus the dungeon. When you select your Rogue and click on a door, he tries to pick the lock, and a roll takes place, based upon his lockpick skill. If that succeeds, do you instantly "defeat" the dungeon? No. You just beat that one lock. You've still got to go through the rest of the dungeon. There could be a trap in that very doorway that you DIDN'T see, because it has nothing to do with your ability to pick locks, or whether or not your lockpicking roll succeeded or failed. Are you following?

 

Let's warp back to combat, shall we? Before you say "BUT ONE ENEMY IS LIKE ONE DOOR, NOT A WHOLE DUNGEON!" please hear me out. In combat, facing a single enemy with a single character, you try to attack, so you make an attack roll, based upon your weapon/fighting skill. Let's say it hits. Okay, it hit. Is the thing dead? Well, you don't know yet. How much damage did you do? For the sake of looking at usual combat, let's say it takes at least a few hits to take down this foe. Okay, so one roll has occurred, and you hit it. It's still not defeated. Maybe you cast a spell, or use an ability. Another roll! Now it's rooted in-place for 3 seconds. Guess what? You still haven't won. Now your attack rolls get boosted because it can't use footwork to dodge. So, you run around behind it (since it can't turn around), and you roll to strike it in the back. Well, now, since your rolls are so much better, you easily land a critical blow to the spine, dealing 20 damage instead of 12. And it had 15 hitpoints left, so one more regular attack wouldn't have killed it, but, one more critical strike to the spine (that you just set up for) did actually kill it. Add to this the fact that it's been hitting you the whole time, and the possibility that, if you had taken the time to strike it TWICE more with normal attacks, it would've had time to hit you the last time it needed to kill you, and you've got the dynamics of combat factors. Yay! NOW you've won!

 

Do you not see how far off picking a lock is from facing an enemy? A lock doesn't move... nor does it do ANYTHING to you. Nor does it have a varying amount of hitpoints. All it has is what mechanically amounts to defense/dodge. It's not even a range (again, because it can't do better or worse at anything. It rolls 20s at just sitting there and being an inanimate object, though.) You're really asking why I have a problem with combat being even remotely similar to [/i]skill-battling an inanimate object?![/i] And you say I have silly reasoning? :)

 

And Speech? Speech isn't even binary, unless it's terribly implemented. "Oh, you have a skill of 50? Now you have jedi mind tricks. Skill of 49? You can't even persuade this person to so much as hear you out." Yup, that's about as much fun as simplistic insta-death.

Edited by Lephys

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how it's now "so-called." Would you at least please make up your mind? First, it IS binary, but that's okay, because look at all the other stuff that's binary! But ALSO, you're not even sure what I'm referring to is binary?

I say "so-called" because even the claim (yours) that save-or-die is binary is a matter of dispute, As I have already demonstrated on this thread. There are at least a dozen factors that can influece the success/failure of any Save or die spell, trap, power or skill in the IE games as well as in tabletop. And when I say "factors", I don't just mean "prevent that mage from casting it!" or "put up a death ward!". I mean *true* tactical factors... the same kind that one would use to dodge a barbarian's Power attack, or to evade a cleric's flame strike.

 

I'm saying nothing new here, Lephys. This is precely the same argument you ignored a page or two ago.

 

 

You're missing the point, and taking things out of context. You wanna compare what I said to lockpicking? All right. You're in a dungeon with 15 locks. It's you versus the dungeon. When you select your Rogue and click on a door, he tries to pick the lock, and a roll takes place, based upon his lockpick skill. If that succeeds, do you instantly "defeat" the dungeon?

Terrible analogy. Assumes the size parameters for a conflict. Perameters that have not been made with regards to save or die spells in your previous arguments. For example, just because you saved against a Bodak's Death gaze, does not mean you suddenly won the entire encounter against the Bodak and his minions. It doesn't even mean you defeated the Bodak itself. It simply means you were presented with a specific challenge (his Gaze attack), and you got through it. (more about this below, since you actually try to address this point)

 

 

Let's warp back to combat, shall we? Before you say "BUT ONE ENEMY IS LIKE ONE DOOR, NOT A WHOLE DUNGEON!" please hear me out. In combat, facing a single enemy with a single character, you try to attack, so you make an attack roll, based upon your weapon/fighting skill. Let's say it hits. Okay, it hit. Is the thing dead? Well, you don't know yet. How much damage did you do? For the sake of looking at usual combat, let's say it takes at least a few hits to take down this foe. Okay, so one roll has occurred, and you hit it. It's still not defeated. Maybe you cast a spell, or use an ability. Another roll! Now it's rooted in-place for 3 seconds. Guess what? You still haven't won. Now your attack rolls get boosted because it can't use footwork to dodge. So, you run around behind it (since it can't turn around), and you roll to strike it in the back. Well, now, since your rolls are so much better, you easily land a critical blow to the spine, dealing 20 damage instead of 12. And it had 15 hitpoints left, so one more regular attack wouldn't have killed it, but, one more critical strike to the spine (that you just set up for) did actually kill it. Add to this the fact that it's been hitting you the whole time, and the possibility that, if you had taken the time to strike it TWICE more with normal attacks, it would've had time to hit you the last time it needed to kill you, and you've got the dynamics of combat factors. Yay! NOW you've won!

Yep. This is the Same argument you made before. So I'll give the same response. Unless you're going to argue that each and every fight should have a set number of steps, including hitting, then hitting again, then again. And that EVERY encounter, against EVERY enemy should be an exercise in incrimental whittling-down of health from Full to zero (and what a DULL, one dimensional system that would be!), your point does. not. stand.

 

Save or die.... is not a mechanic that dictates all combat. It doesn't in D&D, it doesn't in the IE games, or any other system it has ever existed in. Instead, it is a rare, elite-level tool acquireable by some high level casters, some extrordinary monsters, and a minimal # of artifact-level weapons and items. It is an extra dimension to combat. It is designed to promote fear in even *good* players (Fear: something very easily lost/forgotten in a game where the DULL system you're promoting is being used; where every fight is nothing more than a game of checkers (can't suddenly lose at the very beginning because, you know, you still got too many pieces on the board!)

 

You are blowing this out of proportion and giving us scenarios that did not commonly occur with Save or Die in the Infinity engine games, which again, makes me wonder if you played them.

 

 

Do you not see how far off picking a lock is from facing an enemy?

Nope. I don't. Because the differences are not relevant to what we're discussing. A Rogue who's faced with a locked chest will either 1) suceed in unlocking it, or 2)fail to unlock it. Period. Those are the only two options. There is no "half-unlock". Is this not *exactly* the "binary" you're arguing against?

 

And again, the fact that failing to unlock the chest leaves the rogue still alive (or whatever) is not relevant, since No one here is arguing that Locks should be governed by an "Unlock or Die" system, or that locks should be trying to "dodge" your lockpicks. lol

 

And Speech? Speech isn't even binary, unless it's terribly implemented. "Oh, you have a skill of 50? Now you have jedi mind tricks. Skill of 49? You can't even persuade this person to so much as hear you out." Yup, that's about as much fun as simplistic insta-death.

I've yet to see a better working alternative. If you need a persuade score of 50 or more to successfully convince a kidnapper to hand over his prisoner, a score of 49 or less means you simply failed to convince him. What's the alternative? He gives you half the prisoner back since you were "close enough"? Edited by Stun
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It goes against Just about all decent RPG mechanics. Like speech skills, trap disarming, lock picking and summoning mechanics to name just a few. All of these are strictly pass-fail in their natures and all of them have a single, one-step, Act-react process.

 

 

Because that's the easiest way to implement them. Not necessarily because it's the best way.

Of these though, in a perfect world where no effort is spared:

 

Speech check. Definitely shouldn't be pass or fail. 

Try to convince someone of something, shouldn't lead to that someone to either not believing you at all or being completely convinced, with nothing in between.

Most likely you'd end up in somewhere half convinced, not sure territory. Maybe there'd be that one point where he'll do as you say, but with some doubts. Call that a success.

 

Trap disarming. This almost should be a pass or fail.

I was pretty happy with this in NWN, don't have skill enough -> have skill enough to disarm - > have skill enough to recover the trap.

But even further, maybe a faster disarm on higher levels. Add springing the trap safely or semi-safely? Still pretty much pass or fail.

 

Lock picking. Either or, but with a twist.

So you'll either succeed or fail. Maybe a higher roll would give a faster success? A lower roll still a success but would leave marks on the lock and take longer?

A high skill with a high roll and a passerby wouldn't notice you didn't open that door with a key.

 

Summoning.

Why strictly pass or fail? Maybe a higher skill+roll gives better creatures?

Instead of failing, maybe you'll get a lesser creature or a good one that's not in your control, or your control level is between 1-100,

low low scores and the creature would attack you, a bit higher and it'd attack everybody, then only attack enemies but without taking orders, up to complete immediate control.

 

 

Now maybe making nothing pass or fail wouldn't make for a better game.

It would surely make things more complex and less binary and I think I'd like that.

But it might be the game wouldn't be more playable. Can't be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So am I to infer, from your examples, that the *best* way to implement Death spells would be to just give them a variety of effects based on the recipiant's save/skill score?

 

 

For example: Lets "fix" Finger of Death to make it less "binary"

 

If the target's save score is:

 

<10 - he dies a *true* death and cannot be ressurected

10-50 - He dies a standard death, but can be raised.

51-75 - He saves and lives but is Stunned for 5 rounds

76-100 - He saves and suffers no ill effects.

 

 

Sure, I'd be alright with that, since the *spirit* and point of the spell is still there in all its glory. But somehow, I doubt Lephys would approve of it (even though we've just removed all semblance of "BINARY!"). Nope. he'll still be against it, because you can still die. (boo hoo, heaven forbid.)

Edited by Stun
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So am I to infer, from your examples, that the *best* way to implement Death spells would be to just give them a variety of effects based on the recipiant's save/skill score?

 

 

 

Something to the tune of your example would be fine for me.

Maybe add level and amount of HP to the mix? So a high level char or a dragon would almost certainly not die, but would still suffer ill effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like some of the minigames for unlocking locks and disarming traps. I only didn't like the possibility to disarm a lvl 100 lock with an lvl 5 lockpicking skill in Oblivion and Skyrim. There should be things you cant possibly master with a low/not matching skill.

 

But hey they are a step in a good not-rolling pass-or-fail mechanic.

 

Only problem is that not everything can be solved through minigames. (Although I'd really like a minigame for summoning)

 

@ Stun. I don't like that:

 

<10 - he dies a *true* death and cannot be ressurected
10-50 - He dies a standard death, but can be raised.
51-75 - He saves and lives but is Stunned for 5 rounds
76-100 - He saves and suffers no ill effects.

 

I'd automatically reload if the result is <10 (because I liked the killed character a lot and nearly finished his personal questline). This would make this mechanic superfluous.

Its more important to know how the death spell worked and solve this problem. (and a simple protection spell shouldn't help)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm slightly surprised that people seem to think that instant-death spells have only 1 counter (e.g. death-ward-like spells).

 

Here are a few others.

 

Interrupt the spell with damage

Kill the caster before instant-death spell is cast

Silence the caster

 

Regarding Lephys' point about the trip back to town being an inconvenience, remember that the necromancer who so rudely killed one of your party wasn't trying to inconvenience you. He was trying to kill you. If he was merely partially successful then congratulations, you won. Maybe next time you find a similar situation you might be able to do it without the inconvenience of the trip back to town to resurrect your fallen comrade.

 

You're arguing against "you die or you don't" mechanics but saying that you want "you win or you don't" fights.

 

One of my pet hates in party-based-games is that, at the end of a fight, everybody just gets up & dusts themselves down then carries on. I don't even care that it's not realistic (hell, this is fantasy), I care that it's not dramatic.

 

CRPGs are an extension of table-top RPGs and it was the old IE games that best replicated this experience which is why so many of us stumped up the cash to see PE become reality. I can only really speak for myself though I suspect I'm not alone in saying that I'm bored of games that make it all easy for me. I want a game that is hard, that forces me to think & re-think my tactics. A game that  doesn't let me "get away with it" if I charge into a room without a plan. A game that punishes me if I don't make good tactical decisions.

 

A recent example of a game that did all this was the X-Com remake but there aren't many others that spring to mind. I want a game with harsh consequences, I want to be forced to think.

 

Basically, I want the developers to create an EASYMODE for people who don't want a challenge and then focus on making a good game for the rest of us!

  • Like 5

Crit happens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little disappointed by Sawyers quote, cause I think insta-kill spells/ability's/traps can add a lot to one RPG game if they are balanced. And I´m putting emphasis on balanced cause most of the problems he numbers are design/balance problems and not a matter of 1 hit - you die mechanic.

 

But first, why  "insta-kill" mechanics instead of "big damage" mechanics?

Because it means FAR more power in a roleplay perspective (dragons, epic wizards, gods need this kind of things!!) and a FAR more urgent / complicated / fun situation in a tactical situation. (do i cross the fire to put off the trap faster or I go the long way and risk a party member to die?)

 

Why Hard Counters suck?

Because they are not really designed into the game. If you know you are going to fight a red dragon and you get tons of fire-res the hard-counter is not "cheap", is strategic: like someone said, you give up your super shield+5 for the shield+2 of fire absorption. You search for the dragon-slayer items, you memorize the fire-protection spells. That is a way to make the player feel smart, by letting him find and be 1 step ahead. Then, the battle SHOULD be designed around the hard counters developers are giving the players: spells, potions, items and whatever so that dragon wont be just throwing fire to a fire-resistant party, it still must be a challenge. You shouldn't win (unless you are real pro) without having preparation vs "bosses" like dragons.

 

But if a random encounter that you cant know is coming has insta-kill?! CHEAP!!!

Again, not if it IS balanced. As many have said: long casting times, silences, counter spells, stuns, snares (for touch-range), using a fast protection etc... are common ways to balance 1-hit KO spells/abilitys. Specially if there is only a few of them and are good visually and sound telegraphed. And they put pressure on you AND your enemy's. (just give them the IA to know when they are being aimed with a death skill so they can run/shield/counter/silence/stun whatever)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm slightly surprised that people seem to think that instant-death spells have only 1 counter (e.g. death-ward-like spells).

 

Here are a few others.

 

Interrupt the spell with damage

Kill the caster before instant-death spell is cast

Silence the caster

 

Regarding Lephys' point about the trip back to town being an inconvenience, remember that the necromancer who so rudely killed one of your party wasn't trying to inconvenience you. He was trying to kill you. If he was merely partially successful then congratulations, you won. Maybe next time you find a similar situation you might be able to do it without the inconvenience of the trip back to town to resurrect your fallen comrade.

 

You're arguing against "you die or you don't" mechanics but saying that you want "you win or you don't" fights.

 

One of my pet hates in party-based-games is that, at the end of a fight, everybody just gets up & dusts themselves down then carries on. I don't even care that it's not realistic (hell, this is fantasy), I care that it's not dramatic.

 

CRPGs are an extension of table-top RPGs and it was the old IE games that best replicated this experience which is why so many of us stumped up the cash to see PE become reality. I can only really speak for myself though I suspect I'm not alone in saying that I'm bored of games that make it all easy for me. I want a game that is hard, that forces me to think & re-think my tactics. A game that  doesn't let me "get away with it" if I charge into a room without a plan. A game that punishes me if I don't make good tactical decisions.

 

A recent example of a game that did all this was the X-Com remake but there aren't many others that spring to mind. I want a game with harsh consequences, I want to be forced to think.

 

Basically, I want the developers to create an EASYMODE for people who don't want a challenge and then focus on making a good game for the rest of us!

Indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying nothing new here, Lephys. This is precely the same argument you ignored a page or two ago.

There's a difference between ignoring something, and reading and considering something that fails to change the fact of the matter.

 

Terrible analogy. Assumes the size parameters for a conflict. Perameters that have not been made with regards to save or die spells in your previous arguments. For example, just because you saved against a Bodak's Death gaze, does not mean you suddenly won the entire encounter against the Bodak and his minions. It doesn't even mean you defeated the Bodak itself. It simply means you were presented with a specific challenge (his Gaze attack), and you got through it. (more about this below, since you actually try to address this point)

I especially like the "just because you saved against a Bodak's Death gaze does not mean you suddenly won the entire encounter against the Bodak and his minions" line, since you're literally reinforcing my point while failing to realize what my point was.. Assuming parameter size for conflicts? You were comparing the potential effects of an insta-death spell, in combat, to unlocking a locked object! The point wasn't that combat always has a set parameter size. The point was that a locked object always has a set parameter size. When are you ever going to be like "CRAP! SEVEN LOCKS?! I must tactically take down all of these locks, as opposed to only tackling ONE lock!"? Never. Exactly. Therefore, in order to represent the potential for combat to have a parameter size greater than one binary parameter (unless you're going to argue that, some ludicrously high percentage of the time, combat SHOULD involve the same parameter size as a locked object), I had to make an example involving multiple locked objects and a broader challenge than simply "unlock the inanimate object that's never going to do anything beyond sitting there, staring at you, and remaining locked."

 

Recap? Sure thing! I said "Insta-death abilities are binary. One roll determines whether you're unharmed, or you're INFINITELY HARMED." Then you went all "OMG, plenty of things in cRPGs are binary! Like lockpicking!" So then I said "Uhh, there's more to combat than there is to lockpicking. You'd have to look at a whole area filled with pickable locks and other forms of skill checks or capability factors." Then YOU responded with "LOLZ! Why are you even worrying about MULTIPLE locks when we could just be talking about one lock? Oh, also, just because one roll occurs DOES NOT mean that a conflict ends there!"

 

Contradiction, much? "Don't make me an example that assumes there will be multiple parameters involved in a task, oh, but keep in mind that there won't always just be one parameter involved in a task."

 

I... I literally don't know what to say to you. You make discussion so difficult.

 

Yep. This is the Same argument you made before. So I'll give the same response. Unless you're going to argue that each and every fight should have a set number of steps, including hitting, then hitting again, then again. And that EVERY encounter, against EVERY enemy should be an exercise in incrimental whittling-down of health from Full to zero (and what a DULL, one dimensional system that would be!), your point does. not. stand.

My point stands fine. If you'd stop staring into your own point like it's the sun, maybe you'd see mine for what it is.

 

Each and every fight shouldn't have a set number of steps, correct? You would agree? Since you proposed it would be ridiculous for me to argue otherwise, I'll have to assume you would agree. Okay. I'm going to supply you with two specific examples here, since I can't give you an example with absolutely no specific parameters. Yes, the parameters could be different from these, and they could also be these.

 

You get to a fight that just so happens to only require one hit. You have one character, and there's one enemy. As long as you don't refrain from any offensive tactic whatsoever, you slay the thing in one step. It's a rat. You swing, dice roll determines what happens, you kill it. How many times you miss is irrelevant in this context, because that's true of ANYthing. In other words, whether or not you use a sword, or an insta-death spell has no bearing on the potential for you to miss. Okay, you killed it with one sword hit (regardless of how many misses). Okay, now you get to an enemy that's tougher. It's an orc. Ooooh, this guy has more hitpoints and armor, etc. It just so happens that, based on your sword power and his armor and HP, that it's going to take you 8 sword hits (regardless of however many misses) to fell him.

 

Now, rewind, and let's do the same thing again with an insta-death spell. The rat? Takes 1 hit, because insta-death always kills when it hits. The orc? Takes 1 hit, because insta-death never doesn't kill. Now... in which scenario (with insta-deat, or without insta-death) did we see the greatest RANGE of combat parameter/step sizes? That's correct... the one without insta-death. Why is that? Because factors such as armor, HP, and ability effectiveness were not steamrolled by the design of an ability that ignores such things all together.

 

Now, please. PLEASE, tell me that's incorrect. Tell me that, there's JUST as much involved in conflict resolution with insta-death spells as there is with conflict resolution without them. The effect of an insta-death ability is binary. I'm not saying it ends combat. And I'm not saying it takes away movement capabilities and ability ranges and line-of-site, etc. But those things are all still there when using any OTHER ability in the entire game, in any other combat scenario. So, whatever insta-death still has from those things, all non-insta-death abilities still have on top of all the other factors they bring to the table..

 

Recap? Effect of a weapon swing (meaning the effect of it actually connecting)? Not binary. It doesn't switch the enemy's status to dead. It takes into account many factors, and produces an aptly-adjusted affect. Maybe combat's over after it hits, or maybe it isn't. Oh, the possibilities... Effect of casting an insta-death spell? Death. But what if the circumstances are dif- NOPE, DEATH! But, I had really high NOPE! DEATH!

 

Yeah, man. I must be going crazy. Insta-death obviously has absolutely no effect on the potential size of the parameter list for a given combat encounter. What was I thinking?! Thanks for enlightening me, Stun. You're the best! 8D

 

Nope. I don't. Because the differences are not relevant to what we're discussing. A Rogue who's faced with a locked chest will either 1) suceed in unlocking it, or 2)fail to unlock it. Period. Those are the only two options. There is no "half-unlock". Is this not *exactly* the "binary" you're arguing against?

I'm just trying to use as many of your own words as possible, here, since it would seem mine are no good. You don't see the difference, because you can't "half-unlock" a locked chest. Then, logically, according to you, it must be fact that an insta-death spell can, in fact, half-kill someone. Clearly. I mean, if it could ONLY either kill them, or not kill them, then it would be binary. And it surely isn't binary. Heavens no... p_u

 

I've yet to see a better working alternative. If you need a persuade score of 50 or more to successfully convince a kidnapper to hand over his prisoner, a score of 49 or less means you simply failed to convince him. What's the alternative? He gives you half the prisoner back since you were "close enough"?

Hmm... Well, let's see, off the top of my head, there's "You haven't even convinced me to even consider releasing the prisoner," then some amount of "Okay, I'm actually considering releasing the prisoner because of your excellently-chosen words, but you still fail to actually fully convince me to release the prisoner," followed by, at some point there, "you've not only gotten me to consider more options than merely 'kill the prisoner,' but you've eventually led me to the decision that releasing the prisoner would be a good idea."

 

So... you tell me if there's a better way to do it.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm slightly surprised that people seem to think that instant-death spells have only 1 counter (e.g. death-ward-like spells).

 

Here are a few others.

 

Interrupt the spell with damage

Kill the caster before instant-death spell is cast

Silence the caster

Oh, so you can't do any of those to someone who ISN'T casting an insta-death spell? Also, in a way (the key words being "in a way"), they actually DO have only one counter: don't get hit by them. Guess what? You can get hit by a stun, and still not die (or you could die because of the stun). That's, count 'em, TWICE the possibilities of getting hit with an insta-death spell! You can get hit by a weapon swing, and ALSO possibly not die.

 

So, let's look at all of combat's potentiality. Stuff trying to hit you? You could prevent it from hitting you, or cause it to hit you to lesser effect, or counter it when it hits you (for a greater offensive output at the cost of taking the hit), or get hit by it and then heal a bit, or take the hit so as to prevent another character from getting hit, etc. Okay, stuff's trying to hit you with insta-death? You have 2 options: Don't get hit, or die. You can't get hit, react, and have any possibility of doing anything other than dying. You can't work that into your tactics. "Okay, instead of preventing the hit, I'm going to take it, but then I'll make sure I do something effective, then get out of there so I don't get hit again. Then I can use supportive abilities from a safer distance. It'll be tricky, but it should be a lot more effective, overall." Nope. That's off the table. Getting hit = off the table.

 

With pretty much anything that isn't insta-death, getting hit ISN'T off the table. Your Warrior get rooted? Switch to a ranged weapon. HUZZAH! Tactics and reactivity! Your Warrior get hit by an insta-death spell? Switch to DEAD MODE! Your Monk get slowed? Maybe you can switch to a defensive stance while your Wizard starts working up a counterspell. Your Monk get insta-killed? Maybe your Monk can... well... not do anything.

 

You know what? None of this even yet addresses the whole Stamina/Health system. If Health is 4 times your Stamina (or so) to get you from one safety rest/camp point to the next, then insta-death spells are not only taking you out of immediate combat, but also taking out your entire reserve of health for the inter-camp-point span. So, I don't really foresee people rezzing everyone left and right, mid combat. Just something else to consider, methinks.

 

You're arguing against "you die or you don't" mechanics but saying that you want "you win or you don't" fights.

I'm quite literally arguing for the exact opposite of that. You're simply taking examples out of context. I haven't supplied any examples of "THIS IS HOW COMBAT SHOULD BE!". I've simply observed perfectly feasible combat scenarios and factors, in order to illustrate the absolute, unchangeable relationship between insta-death effects and combat as a whole, and entire-range-of-damage-and-things-that-don't-necessarily-result-in-death effects and combat as a whole.

 

I don't understand how you think I want some kind of easymode, or am against death. I'm against the method of death. I'm not demanding that it not be easy to die. I simply want it to be a complex possibility, is all. In other words, if it's going to be so tough for me to tactically kill my enemies, it should be that tough for them to kill me, if I'm controlling my party well enough. All insta-death does is make it SIGNIFICANTLY EASIER for death to occur, no matter what you're doing, because it literally just takes a bunch of combat factors and shatters them against the wall.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I especially like the "just because you saved against a Bodak's Death gaze does not mean you suddenly won the entire encounter against the Bodak and his minions" line, since you're literally reinforcing my point while failing to realize what my point was.. Assuming parameter size for conflicts? You were comparing the potential effects of an insta-death spell, in combat, to unlocking a locked object!

The scope is the same. A lock on a chest is to the entire dungeon, what a specific enemy ability is to the entire encounter. The point stands.

 

The point wasn't that combat always has a set parameter size. The point was that a locked object always has a set parameter size.

And so does an emeny's insta-death attack. It will always have a set perameter size (ie. it's just one power). The. Point. Stands.

 

Then you went all "OMG, plenty of things in cRPGs are binary! Like lockpicking!" So then I said "Uhh, there's more to combat than there is to lockpicking.

Nope. Conceptually there isn't. And non-conceptually, it would most definitely depend on the complexity of the lockpicking system vis a vis the combat system. You can give a mage a "Knock" spell that allows him to instantly open a locked chest, conversely, you can impose nervousness states on a rogue to hurt his chances of using his steady hands to open that locked chest. You can do away with the lock mechanic outright by making all locks bashable by any character class who holds a weapon in their hands.

 

But the end result is still the same in all systems: You have a locked chest. You either succeed in unlocking it, or you fail to unlock it. That is Binary...

 

You'd have to look at a whole area filled with pickable locks and other forms of skill checks or capability factors." Then YOU responded with "LOLZ! Why are you even worrying about MULTIPLE locks when we could just be talking about one lock? Oh, also, just because one roll occurs DOES NOT mean that a conflict ends there!"

Correct. By defintion of conflict resolution, if one roll does not end the conflict, then that just means that the conflict has not been resolved. If that roll suceeds, then it has. But you're not saying anything here. Save or Die works exactly the same way. If I cast Slay Living on an Orc and he makes his save, then I have not resolved the conflict. If he fails his save, then I have.

 

As for your multiple locks retort.... If there's more than one lock, then obviously there's more than one conflict. Similarly, in combat if there's more than one opponent then there's more than one conflict. Not sure what your point is.

 

 

If you'd stop staring into your own point like it's the sun, maybe you'd see mine for what it is.

 

Each and every fight shouldn't have a set number of steps, correct? You would agree? Since you proposed it would be ridiculous for me to argue otherwise, I'll have to assume you would agree. Okay. I'm going to supply you with two specific examples here, since I can't give you an example with absolutely no specific parameters. Yes, the parameters could be different from these, and they could also be these.

 

You get to a fight that just so happens to only require one hit. You have one character, and there's one enemy. As long as you don't refrain from any offensive tactic whatsoever, you slay the thing in one step. It's a rat. You swing, dice roll determines what happens, you kill it. How many times you miss is irrelevant in this context, because that's true of ANYthing. In other words, whether or not you use a sword, or an insta-death spell has no bearing on the potential for you to miss. Okay, you killed it with one sword hit (regardless of how many misses). Okay, now you get to an enemy that's tougher. It's an orc. Ooooh, this guy has more hitpoints and armor, etc. It just so happens that, based on your sword power and his armor and HP, that it's going to take you 8 sword hits (regardless of however many misses) to fell him.

 

Now, rewind, and let's do the same thing again with an insta-death spell. The rat? Takes 1 hit, because insta-death always kills when it hits. The orc? Takes 1 hit, because insta-death never doesn't kill. Now... in which scenario (with insta-deat, or without insta-death) did we see the greatest RANGE of combat parameter/step sizes?

The Range/Size of the combat perameter will always be larger if one has more tools at his disposal. In your example though, it remains undefined. Since I could, if I wanted to, decide to NOT WASTE my 9th level Wail of the Banshee spell on a rat. Or an Orc. Even if I've got multiple copies of it in the ready. I could get creative and just cast a low level poison spell on the orc, then just sit back and watch him die slowly. Or I could focus-fire my entire party of warriors on him and kill him in one or 2 rounds. OR..... I could cast one of my death spells and eliminate him right away. or I could just turn my party invisible and slip past that orc and his entire camp.

 

That's correct... the one without insta-death.

False. Faulty Logic. Assumes having an instant death spell in your arsenal means it must be used in place of a different tactical approach and cannot be used in tandum with one. If we had a spell system where there's only Death spells in it, I would totally agree with every single one of your arguments on this thread. But since I've never seen a system like that, what we see here from you is one giant, perpetual straw man. Death spells are not a substitute to tactical combat. They are an ADDITION to it. This has been MY argument since my very first post on this thread. You have repeatedly IGNORED IT, as evidenced right here.

 

 

Because factors such as armor, HP, and ability effectiveness were not steamrolled by the design of an ability that ignores such things all together.

Bullsh*t. Slay living, Destruction, and vorpal blades require their users to score a hit in combat in order for those effects to occur. Power Word Kill is 100% dependent on the amount of health a target has. Armor itself can bestow saving throw bonusses and other resistances to assist its wearer in surviving against a Save or Die spell. A rogues reflexes can help him evade spells cast at him. etc. etc.

 

Yeah, Confirmed now. You've never played the IE games. You don't know what the F*** you're talking about.

 

 

I'm just trying to use as many of your own words as possible, here, since it would seem mine are no good. You don't see the difference, because you can't "half-unlock" a locked chest. Then, logically, according to you, it must be fact that an insta-death spell can, in fact, half-kill someone.

Well, disentigrate and finger of death can, in fact, half-kill their targets.

 

But you're missing the point. It is my argument that both lockpicking and save or die are equally "binary".

 

 

 

Hmm... Well, let's see, off the top of my head, there's "You haven't even convinced me to even consider releasing the prisoner," then some amount of "Okay, I'm actually considering releasing the prisoner because of your excellently-chosen words, but you still fail to actually fully convince me to release the prisoner,"

Yep. The result of both of these is that he hasn't released the prisoner. The conflict still exists. Therefore, the persuader has still failed.

 

followed by, at some point there, "you've not only gotten me to consider more options than merely 'kill the prisoner,' but you've eventually led me to the decision that releasing the prisoner would be a good idea."

The pass-fail, binary nature of speech skills, as I have described them, do not rule any of this out. In every single level of the d20 system in D&D (as well as the infinity engine games), there is ALWAYS room for creative writing and "consolation prizes" (what you are describing). But these do not change the system. If you need a 50+ to pass a persuade check, then a 49 means you failed to resolve the conflict then and there. It is then up to the DM or the writers to decide whether your "close but no cigar" means something (or not) later on, after this point.

 

This is no different than Save or Die. I already gave you my Centaur example. It's the same concept. I failed my save, and paid the consequences, but because I was powerful, and my party members were smart, I still won in the end.

Edited by Stun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let's look at all of combat's potentiality.

LOL ok, Lets!

 

You cannot logically (or honestly) look at combat potentiality while at the same time argue vociferously to LIMIT it.

 

Death spells ADD to the whole. Nowhere, in any system that features death spells, is a player forced to forgo standard, tactical, run of the mill combat. To hit scores, HP pools, tactical positioning, dodging, missing, quaffing potions, Armor classes, saving throw penalties and bonusses, stealth, fire, ice, immunities, vunerabilities, etc. NONE OF THAT IS TAKEN AWAY simply because the developers decided that Finger of Death will be included on the list of 7th level Mage and cleric spells.

Edited by Stun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scope is the same. A lock on a chest is to the entire dungeon, what a specific enemy ability is to the entire encounter. The point stands.

Nope. A lock is either locked or unlocked. if you're comparing it to single enemy ability, then that would mean the dungeon has a whole bunch of abilities to use against you at one time. But, the chest's only ability is "be locked." There is nothing dynamic about opening a chest. You don't face a whole dungeon at once. You just face one chest. Just like you only face one combat encounter at a time. However many enemies there are in it, you can't just leisurely decide to only kill HALF the enemies, then just keep going. So, a combat encounter, at its smallest, involves one enemy. Therefore, chest figuratively = enemy. Chest's lockedness figuratively = enemy's ability.

 

Also, the similarity between picking a lock and killing with an insta-death spell is exactly what I was pointing out is bad. In that comparison, who is the locked chest? Your character. Who is the lockpicker? The enemy using the ability. Your life or death, instead of being a range of states of being and status ailments and levels of control and available resources, is reduced to the simplicity of a lockpick check. Which you still have yet to address. Yet you stress how specifically the two are related. Strange...

 

And so does an emeny's insta-death attack. It will always have a set perameter size (ie. it's just one power). The. Point. Stands.

How is this not the exact same thing I'm stating? When you're unlocking a chest, you don't CARE that it's binary, because the chest is incapable of doing anything. But when you're facing an enemy, you DO care whether or not your death is binary, because lots of things are going on, and you want them all to matter.

 

Stun... why do you want combat abilities to turn combat into lockpicking? Why? I need to know. Mightily. 

 

 

Nope. Conceptually there isn't.

Okay... you're clearly just messing with me now. Hah-hah! Very funny.

 

Lock? 2 states of being: locked, or unlocked. Living entity? OODLES of states of being: Living, wounded, majorly wounded, minorly wounded, silenced, poisoned, slowed, healing, parrying, blocking, countering, aggressive, precision-focused, on-fire, stunned, rooted, blind, the list goes on...

 

Completely different things, conceptually. The only way they could be the same, conceptually, is if your enemy was always inanimate.

 

Correct. By defintion of conflict resolution, if one roll does not end the conflict, then that just means that the conflict has not been resolved. If that roll suceeds, then it has. But you're not saying anything here. Save or Die works exactly the same way. If I cast Slay Living on an Orc and he makes his save, then I have not resolved the conflict. If he fails his save, then I have.

 

As for your multiple locks retort.... If there's more than one lock, then obviously there's more than one conflict. Similarly, in combat if there's more than one opponent then there's more than one conflict. Not sure what your point is.

... You... are... quite... literally... making... my... point. Open your eyes, for one second. I beg of you.

 

Earlier, you just said (and I quote):

 

The scope is the same. A lock on a chest is to the entire dungeon, what a specific enemy ability is to the entire encounter. The point stands.

And now, you just said each lock equals one conflict, just like each opponent = one conflict. Which is it? Is a lock an ability within a conflict, or a whole living ENEMY within a conflict? Haha. Okay, the fact that you're contradicting yourself aside, let's get back to that whole "you're actually making my very own point" thing. A conflict... get this... can be made up of lesser conflicts. Just like a war is made out of battles, a battle is made out of opponents. So, you have a conflict against each and every opponent present in a battle. The entire conflict is simply a compound conflict.

 

Here's where you're wrong, though, with your "if one roll doesn't resolve the conflict, then that's no different from Slay Orc failing to kill the orc." What does Slay Orc do? What are the only 2 possible outcomes of Slay Orc? That it A) successfully strikes the Orc, and ends that one conflict of the Orc being a living thing trying to murder your face, OR B) it fails to strike the Orc, and literally nothing happens at all. I already addressed this. Nothing but one of those 2 things can ever happen. Either the conflict is resolved, or nothing happens ("the conflict is simply not resolved" is not accurate, as there can be an effect between "nothing" and "the orc dies" without the conflict being resolved, which you seem to fail to comprehend). Let's, for the 700th time, look at a standard attack. Oh, what's this? You roll to hit! *gasp*. There's a dice roll, just like with Slay Orc! Ohhh, but he fails to dodge. So you hit him. OH NO! HE LOST HITPOINTS! But wait. He's not dead! You've affected the conflict without resolving it completely, but also it doesn't remain the same. You've altered applicable factors that now further contribute to all attempts made at the resolution of the conflict! *gasp* WHAT DEMONRY?!

 

The simple fact that a standard attack (ANY attack that isn't an insta-death effect) has at least 3 potential outcomes, rather than just 2 quite literally means that insta-death effects restrict tactical variety. The only way they could restrict it more is to have only ONE outcome (to never miss, and always simply succeed).

 

Riddle me this, Stun-man... how does that not make sense? Tell me how that is false.

 

The Range/Size of the combat perameter will always be larger if one has more tools at his disposal.

Unless one of those is an ability to negate all other tools at his disposal. Tell me which is more complex:

 

-You come upon a big tough baddie, and you look at your tool belt, and you say "Hmm, I really don't want to deal with all that HP and armor and figure out how best to maneuver around him, and when to make people work together and take him down. I'll just use "Deathify," 8D!

 

or

 

-You come upon a big tough baddie, and you look at your tool belt, and you don't have a Deathify. Neither does the big baddie, but he can still kill you quite easily, because of the particular circumstances. So, you still have to fear death. Possibly even 1-hit death. But, you've got to deal with combat factors that affect the effectiveness of your tactical choices, rather than reducing everything involved with felling this particular baddie to a SINGLE dice roll (even if you have to make it several times, it's the same check each time, repeated.)

 

The day the 1st one is more complex, you will be correct in all this nonsense.

 

False. Faulty Logic. Assumes having an instant death spell in your arsenal means it must be used in place of a different tactical approach and cannot be used in tandum with one. If we had a spell system where there's only Death spells in it, I would totally agree with every single one of your arguments on this thread. But since I've never seen a system like that, what we see here from you is one giant, perpetual straw man. Death spells are not a substitute to tactical combat. They are an ADDITION to it. This has been MY argument since my very first post on this thread. You have repeatedly IGNORED IT, as evidenced right here.

Oh, well, in that case, why don't we have Mass Death spells? Let's have a "Your Whole Party Dies" spell. I mean, it'd be limited, and it's not like you could use it in conjunction with any other ability, so it wouldn't be silly. I mean, you couldn't like, instantly kill the entire enemy group AND stun them or something. Jeez. All you can do is kill them. It's a very tactical decision. "Crap... do I absolutely kill, or should I, perhaps, just maim them?"

 

Just like how, when confronted with an enemy using that type of spell, you have so many tactical options vailable, such as "Don't get hit by that spell!," or "Don't get hit by that spell!," or, my favorite, "Make sure that spell doesn't hit anyone!"

 

So, why don't we have group-insta-death spells, hmm? Wouldn't that add yet another layer of tactics to the equation?

 

Well, disentigrate and finger of death can, in fact, half-kill their targets.

...Thereby taking the "insta" right out of the "death." I'm talking about "insta-death" abilities, the effects of which are death, under any and all circumstances. Not once have I made any specific reference to IE games abilities, nor have I ever claimed to be a master of the old IE games. So, I'd say that my lack of knowledge of abilities in the IE games that don't instantly-and-absolutely kill you has absolutely no bearing on my knowing what I'm talking about regarding abilities that do so.

 

Have fun trying to win, though, and I'll continue to pursue logical evaluation. Come get me when you're on the same page. Until then, I'll let you spout out whatever you'd like. If you can't figure out what I'm saying in these multiple pages of our back-and-forth, then there's nothing anyone can do about that but you. I've done all I can. u_u

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lock is either locked or unlocked. if you're comparing it to single enemy ability, then that would mean the dungeon has a whole bunch of abilities to use against you at one time. But, the chest's only ability is "be locked."

 

There is nothing dynamic about opening a chest.

First off, False. A chest may be locked. Or it may be trapped. Or, trapped and locked. Or, Guarded, Trapped, and locked. Or hidden, Guarded, trapped or locked. Moreover, there may be more than one Chest in a Dungeon. A dungeon may have several chests. Some Trapped and locked, some just locked. Some guarded and locked. Some Guarded trapped and locked. Some Hidden and locked. Etc. The point remains. :)

 

As for your moronic new claim that there's nothing dynamic about opening a chest... Yeah, OK. I would love nothing more than to invite you to my kitchen table for a D&D session that I DM. I promise you that within 1 hour, you will be singing a different tune. You will fear Mimics. You will lament the absense of a good Rogue. You will learn to take great pains in employing team synergy.

 

 

You don't face a whole dungeon at once. You just face one chest. Just like you only face one combat encounter at a time. However many enemies there are in it, you can't just leisurely decide to only kill HALF the enemies, then just keep going.

Oh I would never suggest that one liesurely do anything. But I beg to differ with your nonsensical point here. If I've got a party full of high level casters, they sure as hell CAN decide to kill half the enemies with their death spells. That would be their choice, due to the full range of combat options avaliable to them. Of course, after they're done doing this, they can then decide to kill the other half with Summons, And if that doesn't work, they can then pull out the heavy fire power and just Fry the survivors with their acid storms, and Meteor Swarms. Or hell, they may decide to just make themselves invisible and non-detectable and avoid 100% of all enemies in that dungeon.

 

Man, A few pages ago I swore to ignore you when you lapse into your stream of consciousness, but Now I'm actually enjoying the ride.

 

 

Here's where you're wrong, though, with your "if one roll doesn't resolve the conflict, then that's no different from Slay Orc failing to kill the orc." What does Slay Orc do? What are the only 2 possible outcomes of Slay Orc? That it A) successfully strikes the Orc, and ends that one conflict of the Orc being a living thing trying to murder your face, OR B) it fails to strike the Orc, and literally nothing happens at all. I already addressed this. Nothing but one of those 2 things can ever happen.

This is the Second time you have committed an error due to ignorance of the rules you're trying to argue the logic/illogic of. And I'm done correcting you. Please fire up your browser, google D&D Finger of Death, and READ ITS DESCRIPTION.

 

Then come back and apologise for making the FALSE claim that "literally nothing happens" when the victim makes his save.

 

 

The simple fact that a standard attack (ANY attack that isn't an insta-death effect) has at least 3 potential outcomes, rather than just 2

Nope, there's only 2 outcomes. Either the hit opponent survives, or he doesn't. A "hurt" opponent still lives. And a living opponent does not constitute a resolution to the conflict, unless the conflict itself is: force this guy to surrender. And if it is, then there's still only 2 outcomes: 1) surrender, 2) don't.

 

 

 

Riddle me this, Stun-man... how does that not make sense? Tell me how that is false.

It's not that it doesn't make sense, my pointlessly long-winded buddy, it's that it's an utterly ignorant and wholely erroneous interpretation and application of the combat system we are discussing. You simply don't know what you're talking about. You've never played the IE games and, and as a result, you don't know how their mechanics work, and this FACT is repeatedly hurting you in this discussion

 

 

 

Unless one of those is an ability to negate all other tools at his disposal.

Death spells do not negate ALL tools at a target's disposal. A mage can still use many different spells to counter or neutralize a Death spell cast at him. A fighter may use potions to do the same. A rogue may use his Stealth skills.... etc.

 

Stop making false claims.

 

 

Oh, well, in that case, why don't we have Mass Death spells?

 

So, why don't we have group-insta-death spells, hmm?

We do. They exist. And they exist in the IE games.

 

Lephys, I cannot have an intelligent debate on this subject if my opponent is coming in here completely ignorant to the very subject he's attempting to debate.

 

I point to the Infinity Engine games. Classics. All-time classics that have caused tens of thousands of Backers to flock to project Eternity's kickstarter at their very mention. Combat in those games was SUPERB. SUPERB because (or despite) the fact that all these insta-death effect spells were there, usable by your party, your opponents, and Traps in dungeons.

 

Explain to us why this is, if you really believe that what you are saying is right.

 

 

 

Well, disentigrate and finger of death can, in fact, half-kill their targets.

...Thereby taking the "insta" right out of the "death."

 

Nope. Instant death still occurs if he fails his save. Edited by Stun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nope. Instant death still occurs if he fails his save.

 

I am just checking to see if you noticed the lead designer of the game already posted saying they won't be including save or die mechanics in PE.

 

It may just be me but I think you critically failed your disbelieve check and now think the illusion is real.  The illusion being that save or die mechanics are interesting, fun, add any depth to gameplay, or have any chance of being included in the game.

 

Tactics is not casting protection from fire when you know you are about to fight a fire elemental, that's called common sense.  Tactics is using your fighter to taunt and lure it to a cliff edge, having your rogue stun it with a smoke bomb so it's dazed, getting your mage cast a freezing spell on it, then ordering your priest use a powerful divine spell that knocks enemies away to push it off the cliff.

Edited by Karkarov
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...