Instant Death

[curryinahurry]

^ Illithids didn't instant kill you in BG2 did they?  I thought they sucked intelligence points, and when the character zeroed out, it was a brain suck.  It was the same as losing hit points, only from a shallower pool.  BTW, that sort of mechanic should definitely be in P:E; monsters that kill by means other than whittling down health or stamina.  It will be interesting to see how Obsidian handle such things and if the effects are treated like health (regeneration only through rest) or like stamina (relatively rapid).

[Iucounu]

The problem are not deathspells, but excessively randombased deathspells. Power Word Kill is basically just a damagespell, the only difference being that it does nothing if the victim has a certain amount of hitpoints left. Nothing wrong with such spells, even if you want to have more deterministic mechanics. 

 

What I would like to have in P:E is more contitional, circumstantial deathspells or deathcurses. In the way of: preparationspell or curse can be cast under certain conditions, then if the victim behaves in a certain way, it instantly dies, or a deathspell can be cast that makes it instantly die. 

Rough example: "locking" away a certain spell from an enemy mage, by cursing him while he casts the spell, for instance, arcane veil. If the wizard casts arcane veil a second time to protect himself, he instantly dies, or a deathspell can be cast that kills him immediately. 

The more general the conditions, the more powerful the deathspell. 

 

This concept can be extended on other sorts of spells as well. So they are more dependant on what people are actually doing on the battlefield, instead of only statbased or randombased. 

Edited June 17, 2013 by Iucounu

[teknoman2]

thinking of it, the rareness or even absence of instadeath spells, should be proportional to the weight death has in the game. in a final fantasy game for instance, death is cheap. if a character goes down, all you need is to use an item or a fairly common spell and get him back on his feet, so it's not really that much of a problem if random enemies have instadeath. in BG instadeath was rare because it took more effort to get an ally back if at all. of course there was a remedy for every form of death except dismemberment, but it was expensive

in a game like eternity, where death is permanent and irreversible, instadeath should be out, or at least available to very few boss-like individuals, with a form of early warning about them having that ability

[Lephys]

BTW, that sort of mechanic should definitely be in P:E; monsters that kill by means other than whittling down health or stamina.  It will be interesting to see how Obsidian handle such things and if the effects are treated like health (regeneration only through rest) or like stamina (relatively rapid).

I'm excitably all for this! Stat-leeching. If any stat hits 0, you die. If you kill that foe, however, the leeched "amount" of whatever stat is released, and returned to the target of the leeching. *thumbs up*

 

The problem are not deathspells, but excessively randombased deathspells. Power Word Kill is basically just a damagespell, the only difference being that it does nothing if the victim has a certain amount of hitpoints left. Nothing wrong with such spells, even if you want to have more deterministic mechanics. 

 

What I would like to have in P:E is more contitional, circumstantial deathspells or deathcurses. In the way of: preparationspell or curse can be cast under certain conditions, then if the victim behaves in a certain way, it instantly dies, or a deathspell can be cast that makes it instantly die. 

Rough example: "locking" away a certain spell from an enemy mage, by cursing him while he casts the spell, for instance, arcane veil. If the wizard casts arcane veil a second time to protect himself, he instantly dies, or a deathspell can be cast that kills him immediately. 

The more general the conditions, the more powerful the deathspell. 

 

This concept can be extended on other sorts of spells as well. So they are more dependant on what people are actually doing on the battlefield, instead of only statbased or randombased.

^ This. I'd love to see something, for example, that kills you if you deal too much spell damage within a given amount of time. Depending on the circumstances, you could toss those 3 extra fireballs and suffer the death, if you think that would be a worthwhile trade. Or, you could just throw 1 fireball (in the event you had planned on throwing 3), and, instead, adapt your tactics to keep that caster alive-and-well and still manage to take down the enemy via another means (maybe you summon something, or augment another character, since that doesn't count as destructive spell energy being channeled by you).

 

Or, I still think some spell/ability that, if stricken by it a certain number of subsequent times in a single encounter, would instantly kill you, would be interesting.

 

There are MUCH cleverer ways in which to threaten the player with crazy deaths (and allow the player to do the same to others) than to make up a "this kills you" ability that's impeded by a single saving throw/resistance check.

 

BG2 obviously had abilities that weren't instantaneous, single-die-roll kill-or-don't-do-anything's. So, what I'm saying is, look to those for inspiration, and let's leave the overly simplistic chance-death spells at home. Take Power Word: Kill, for example. It's far more interesting to have your Warrior get low on health and have to worry about him being susceptible to a quick death at the hands of Power Word: Kill now when you really need him to be on the frontlines, not-worrying about his instant-death, and having to use everyone else to compensate for his lack of frontline presence, than it is to simply go into combat saying "Man, I sure hope no one instantly kills any of my full-health party members, instantly, just because a single die roll gets lucky, and for no other reason."

Edited June 18, 2013 by Lephys

[Stun]

There are MUCH cleverer ways in which to threaten the player with crazy deaths (and allow the player to do the same to others) than to make up a "this kills you" ability that's impeded by a single saving throw/resistance check.

LOL

 

For that matter, there are MUCH cleverer ways in which to threaten the player with crazy deaths than simply present him with a powerful melee opponent who can kill him with just a few hits with a sword due to sheer power.

 

Therefore, lets get rid of melee combat? Or power differentials in combat?

 

That's your logic. Lephys logic. Gotta love it.

 

 

BG2 obviously had abilities that weren't instantaneous, single-die-roll kill-or-don't-do-anything's. So, what I'm saying is, look to those for inspiration, and let's leave the overly simplistic chance-death spells at home.

BG2 had a bit of everything, actually. And what made it great WAS that variety. Take it away and the experience is ruined. There were no arbitrary phylosophical limits in BG2's combat. None. It did not feel the least bit rigid. Didn't feel like the devs were imposing their own, singular, miguided viewpoints of what makes combat fun. Instead, Everything was tossed into the system and then it was up to the player to do whatever he wanted to do to win, or whatever he thought was fun. And that included giving the player insta-death spells. And giving the player the ability to spam the battlefield with traps so as to avoid even boss battle combat outright.

 

The bottom line in this entire discussion is that there's two sides. one side wants it all, while the other side wants LESS.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Stun

[Lephys]

LOL

 

For that matter, there are MUCH cleverer ways in which to threaten the player with crazy deaths than simply present him with a powerful melee opponent who can kill him with just a few hits with a sword due to sheer power.

 

Therefore, lets get rid of melee combat? Or power differentials in combat?

 

That's your logic. Lephys logic. Gotta love it.

There are. And, for that matter, they're also in the game. And the ultra-powerful melee combatant is still finitely powerful, and will still be less of a threat to more heavily-armored opponents with higher health quantities than he will be to lesser-armored opponents with lower health quantities, and he can be affected by any number of status effects (disarm, weaken, etc.) that further affect the extent of damage of a blow from his weapon against a given target, all without even preventing him from successfully striking the target (which is yet another option). Not to mention the variable status of the target (stoneskin, Mage Armor, etc.) and its effect on the same foe.

 

And yet, an instant-death spell remains infinitely powerful, because if you reduce its damage by 15%, it still deals 85% of infinite damage to you. Thus, you have no choice but to avoid the spell all-together if you don't want to die.

 

So, recap: Don't want to die to strong melee dude? Mitigate his damage output via dozens of tactics and circumstantial factors, OR don't get hit by him (which isn't always possible). Don't want to die to the instant-death spell? Don't get hit by the instant-death spell. What determines whether or not you die to the melee dude's strike? His damage dealt to you, after a plethora of damage-altering factors, as compared to your available hitpoints AND your own defensive damage-altering factors. What determines whether or not you die to the instant-death spell? Luck.

 

You're right. They're exactly the same. If we're going to get rid of instant-death spells, then we should obviously get rid of high-damage melee opponents.

 

Stun logic. Simply stunning.

 

The bottom line in this entire discussion is that there's two sides. one side wants it all, while the other side wants LESS.

False, yet again. If there are 10 total abilities (lights) in the game (there can't be infinite... so I've picked a finite example number), and 9 are dimmer-switch dials, and one is a simple on/off switch, the on/off switch isn't doing anything the dimmer dials haven't already given you the capability to do. It just gives you 2 states of lighting, instead of... I dunno... hundreds, for each light? So, while removing the on/off switch would leave us with only 9 switches, and therefore quantifiably fewer lights to control, there's nothing that says we couldn't simply put a 10th dimmer switch in attached to 10th light.

 

Boom... overly simple switch (instant-death) removed, and yet now we not only have the same number of lights (abilities), but even more control over the 10th one than we previously had. ALL while every single light switch retains the ability to be completely off (no effect) and completely on (death).

 

Simply put, an additional way for you to die in game filled with ways for you to die is not, in-and-of-itself, adding anything that the game already lacked. Therefore, if it doesn't actually produce new and different factors for you to deal with in tactical combat, it's actually just giving you less.

 

If we took the finished game, and added in another enemy, with nothing but the ability to run in circles, would the game gain any depth? "Oh man, I know all the other enemies CAN run in circles, but this enemy can ONLY run in circles! That's something we haven't had to deal with before!: The complete absence of any other factors being produced by this enemy, other than circular movement!"

[Stun]

There are. And, for that matter, they're also in the game. And the ultra-powerful melee combatant is still finitely powerful, and will still be less of a threat to more heavily-armored opponents with higher health quantities than he will be to lesser-armored opponents with lower health quantities, and he can be affected by any number of status effects (disarm, weaken, etc.) that further affect the extent of damage of a blow from his weapon against a given target, all without even preventing him from successfully striking the target (which is yet another option). Not to mention the variable status of the target (stoneskin, Mage Armor, etc.) and its effect on the same foe.

As usual, you're not saying anything here. You're just changing the subject. All powers, abilities and spells in a good RPG are finite, and their success always hinges on the offensive and defensive capabilities of their owners and their targets. ALL of them. Including death spells.

 

And yet, an instant-death spell remains infinitely powerful

Nope. Not in BG2. Not in Icewind Dale. Not in Icewind Dale 2. Try playing those games sometime. Do it. You'll see for yourself. Then you'll come back humbled, and eating crow. Apologising for the gross ignorance you've been displaying for a half dozen pages now on this subject. You'll comeback and say: "Wait a minute! Death spells weren't all that. I sometimes used them and sometimes didn't. They didn't seem all that different to me than the other spells...."

 

because if you reduce its damage by 15%, it still deals 85% of infinite damage to you.

A distinction without a point. Different spells do different things. Some don't do *any* damage. And this is by design. A Hold spell will never only 85% hold a target. It will either hold them 100% or it won't hold them at all. That is the system we're discussing.

 

 

 

False, yet again. If there are 10 total abilities (lights) in the game (there can't be infinite... so I've picked a finite example number), and 9 are dimmer-switch dials, and one is a simple on/off switch, the on/off switch isn't doing anything the dimmer dials haven't already given you the capability to do.

A dimmer switch that lets you instantly turn off the light would indeed be awesome. It would also constitute something you've been ranting against since your first post on this thread. Who are you kidding? Edited June 19, 2013 by Stun

[Lephys]

As usual, you're not saying anything here. You're just changing the subject. All powers, abilities and spells in a good RPG are finite, and their success always hinges on the offensive and defensive capabilities of their owners and their targets. ALL. including death spells.

Then please tell me, good sir... how much damage does something that instantly-kills you do?

 

Not in BG2. Not in Icewind Dale. Not in Icewind Dale 2. Try playing those games sometime. Do it. You'll see for yourself. Then you'll come back humbled, and eating crow. Apologising for the gross ignorance on this subject you've been blathering about for a half dozen pages now. You'll comeback and say: "Wait a minute! Death spells weren't all that. I sometimes used them and sometimes didn't. They didn't seem all that different to me than the other spells...."

I would ask that you please stop trying to start an argument over the spells in BG2 and in IWD that happened to sort of cause death but are obviously not of the instant-death variety against which I am arguing, as we've already clarified. If you would be so kind. I'm just trying to save you the wasted effort, since no one's telling you that all the spells in BG2 and IWD were infinitely powerful. Nor have I even cited specific ones from those games as infinitely powerful. Not a one.

 

A distinction without a point. Different spells do different things. A Hold spell will never only 85% hold a target. it will either hold them 100% or it won't hold them at all. That is the system we're discussing.

It has a point to those who comprehend fundamental concepts. Death (in RPG mechanics) is the point at which you've sustained as-much-or-more damage than your health pool allowed. Therefore, it exists on the variable scale of damage, which is only NOT-variable if everyone is limited to 1 hitpoint, and everything does at least whole numbers worth of damage. Which isn't the case. The damage scale starts at 0, and ends at Death.

 

The Hold effect is inherently binary. You are either prevented from moving, or you are not prevented from moving. If you're moving, then nothing's preventing your movement, and vice versa. As you, yourself pointed out.

 

Poison is another. You either have poison in your bloodstream, or you don't. There is no range that goes from 0 to poison. There is only not-poisoned, and poisoned.

 

Hence, we have phrases like "half-dead," and "close to death," while we don't have phrases like "half-poisoned" or "he's close to poison."

 

If you're not poisoned, you're fine. If you're not Held, you're fine. If you're not dead, you're not necessarily fine.

 

Continue ignoring context, would you? This is fun.

 

A dimmer switch that lets you instantly turn off the light would indeed be awesome. It would also constitute something you've been ranting against since your first post on this thread. Who are you kidding?

Obviously you've never used a dimmer switch? The knob can be turned all the way down to turn off the light, OR it can simply be pressed as a binary toggle.

 

I don't know... who AM I kidding? o_o

[Elerond]

 

There is nothing inherently wrong in instant death effects but in IE games they were often too much luck based abilities that could kill one of the most difficult opponents with one hit or do nothing. Which made them somewhat random effects and very effective things for those who don't mind save-load multiple times in row. I like more Witcher style instant death combos where you can finish easily opponents that are stunned or otherwise disabled, although in witcher 1 first boss fight could be one of the hardest battles in game or easiest depending on did you have instakill combo or not. 

[Stun]

Then please tell me, good sir... how much damage does something that instantly-kills you do?

None. And it doesn't have to. Unlike the modern day, soulless, rigid RPGs you're used to playing, Back in the Days of the IE games, Many spells actually didn't do damage. They had different functions. Imagine that. different functions! Yes, yes, I know, That sounds silly. Spells aren't "cool" unless they cause explosions, pretty lights, and damage. Right? <derp>

 

I would ask that you please stop trying to start an argument over the spells in BG2 and in IWD that happened to sort of cause death but are obviously not of the instant-death variety against which I am arguing

Not talking about those. I'm talking about All Insta-death spells. They all come with so many caveats, so many tangeables, so many counters, so many ways they can fail, so many ways they can be made more powerful, or weaker, used, stopped, delayed...

 

To ignore all this and just dismiss them as nothing more complicated than a heads or tails coin-flip is either deliberate dishonestly, or just plain old ignorance of the system being discussed.

 

 

It has a point to those who comprehend fundamental concepts. Death (in RPG mechanics) is the point at which you've sustained as-much-or-more damage than your health pool allowed. Therefore, it exists on the variable scale of damage

Therefore, a Death spell who's success or failure is dependent on the size of the target's Health pool would fit within that system's "fundamental concept". Yes? Of course, we have already cited at least *two* types of death spells in the IE games that functioned precisely that way. But you still oppose the existance of those spells. So no. You're disputing your OWN arguments here.

 

 

 

The Hold effect is inherently binary. You are either prevented from moving, or you are not prevented from moving. If you're moving, then nothing's preventing your movement, and vice versa. As you, yourself pointed out.

 

Poison is another. You either have poison in your bloodstream, or you don't. There is no range that goes from 0 to poison. There is only not-poisoned, and poisoned.

 

Hence, we have phrases like "half-dead," and "close to death," while we don't have phrases like "half-poisoned" or "he's close to poison."

 

If you're not poisoned, you're fine. If you're not Held, you're fine. If you're not dead, you're not necessarily fine.

 

Continue ignoring context, would you? This is fun.

Yet, any good spell system will have those Binary spell effects. If it doesn't, then people will complain of its unimaginitive, one dimensional nature.

 

That's kinda the point I've been making here. It pains me to see people not wanting the 'binary' spell effects like Hold, stun, silence, sleep, and insta-death etc. in their RPGs. These are the things that make the spell system interesting, and NON-DULL.

 

 

Obviously you've never used a dimmer switch? The knob can be turned all the way down to turn off the light, OR it can simply be pressed as a binary toggle.

Then your analogy is a straw man. Because no one here is arguing that we should ONLY have Save or die (ie. an on/off switch), but that a robust system (a dimmer) should ALSO include insta-death spells (ie. the ability to press that dimmer and cut the lights instantly) Edited June 19, 2013 by Stun

[Lephys]

None. And it doesn't have to. Unlike the modern day, soulless, rigid RPGs you're used to playing, Back in the Days of the IE games, Many spells actually didn't do damage. They had different functions. Imagine that. different functions! Yes, yes, I know, That sounds silly. Spells aren't "cool" unless they cause explosions, pretty lights, and damage. Right? <derp>

Negatory, Ghost Rider. You see, the game's abstraction of "health" has already defined the state of "death" as the displacement of the entire, variably-sized health pool. Therefore, if a spell simply produces death, it deals infinite damage. As opposed to a spell that only deals 50 damage, and, therefore, only kills things with 50-or-fewer hitpoints. Ignoring the fact that the damage can be mitigated/altered between the casting of the spell and the actual application of damage.

 

So, a spell/ability whose description is "If saving throw is successful, nothing happens; else, target dies" deals infinite damage.

 

Not talking about those. I'm talking about All Insta-death spells. They all come with so many caveats, so many tangeables, so many counters, so many ways they can fail, so many ways they can be made more powerful, or weaker, used, stopped, delayed...

 

To ignore all this and just dismiss them as nothing more complicated than a heads or tails coin-flip is either deliberate dishonestly, or just plain old ignorance of the system being discussed.

I'm not sure what I'm ignoring. I've been talking about, quite literally, "save-or-die" spells/abilities this entire time. You've even used that term. I've been talking about the absolution of the effect of the spell, as well, and clarifying like nobody's business. It boggles my mind that you'd still bring up factors like "your initial resistance/saving-throw modifier can be different! And the spell could have other conditions! Etc.!" as if I haven't addressed them.

 

Allow me to simplify:

 

They're currently making a game, with God-knows-what abilities in it. These could include "a dice roll determines whether or not this kills you" spells. I think that's a terrible idea, thus I voiced this in a discussion forum.

 

If you're talking about an ability that doesn't functionally deal infinite damage as its effect, then you're not arguing against me. It's really not complicated. Why do you keep saying "no such spell exists!"? Of course it does. I've played oodles of games in which something had a %chance to kill the target instantly, no matter how much HP there was between that target's current state and 0 HP. And even if there weren't, we're dealing with a game that is in development, and it's clear that the ability to implement an ability/spell like that is entirely possible. Precedent doesn't dictate what's possible.

 

I've literally spent this entire time trying to make sure it was clear exactly what type of abilities I'm against, and exactly what type I'm not against, and you're all "THIS ability from THIS game is an ability you're not against, but I'm going to pretend you're against it, then ask you if we should remove it from the game, as if you didn't specify 73 times what your criteria were!"

 

I can only assume at this point that you love argument for argument's sake. Good luck with that.

[Stun]

Negatory, Ghost Rider. You see, the game's abstraction of "health" has already defined the state of "death" as the displacement of the entire, variably-sized health pool. Therefore, if a spell simply produces death, it deals infinite damage. As opposed to a spell that only deals 50 damage, and, therefore, only kills things with 50-or-fewer hitpoints. Ignoring the fact that the damage can be mitigated/altered between the casting of the spell and the actual application of damage.

 

We've already been through this with you, son. Insta-death is not a damage mechanic. It technically isn't part of the "health-abstraction" at all. And it doesn't need to be. Instead, it is to be grouped in the same category as Non-health affecting spells, of which any *good* spell system will have many. Categorize it with Stun, and sleep, petrification, Hold, and expell types of spells. And know that despite your apocolyptic fears and willfull disbelief, it can, (and has for years) actually co-exist with all good "health pool" reducing systems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not talking about those. I'm talking about All Insta-death spells. They all come with so many caveats, so many tangeables, so many counters, so many ways they can fail, so many ways they can be made more powerful, or weaker, used, stopped, delayed...

 

To ignore all this and just dismiss them as nothing more complicated than a heads or tails coin-flip is either deliberate dishonestly, or just plain old ignorance of the system being discussed.

I'm not sure what I'm ignoring.

 

Oh, that's an easy one! Allow me. For the last half dozen pages (including this very post I'm responding to), you have consistantly ignored the fact that death spells come with a large and nearly all-encompassing list of counters, defense mechanisms, preventions, methods of enhancements, methods of diminishments, limitations, restrictions, consequences, and other factors tied to them in the system so as to render FALSE anyone's claim that they're simply nothing more than a basic "Heads you win, tails you lose" type of dead-end power. Like a Light switch, or some other retarded comparison you'd attempt to describe them as.

 

You're never going to overcome this bottom line. And there's no way you will understand these spells and what they Actually contribute to a game until you actually play a game that they exist in.

 

Edit: Ooh! look at those pretty sentence-ending prepositions! My high school english teachers would be proud.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Stun

[Chippy]

 

There is nothing inherently wrong in instant death effects but in IE games they were often too much luck based abilities that could kill one of the most difficult opponents with one hit or do nothing. Which made them somewhat random effects and very effective things for those who don't mind save-load multiple times in row. I like more Witcher style instant death combos where you can finish easily opponents that are stunned or otherwise disabled, although in witcher 1 first boss fight could be one of the hardest battles in game or easiest depending on did you have instakill combo or not. 

 

Very true.  They removed your potions quaffed before the battle aswell - although if you went to the stone buffing Aard and had prepared that line of sign, it was as you stated, pretty much over for the boss.  My first playthrough was a realization that it was less about role playing and more about the secret handshake beating rock, paper, scissors.  Classic example of developers changing the rules (especially on a game where you played as a Witcher). 

It's that lack of rule consistancy that really brings up the flaws of instant death for either the player or their enemies, as from that moment on I was not just being concerned about the rules being a source of death, but bad development aswell.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Should we exclude powerful traps in dungeons as well? After all, if you're not using that one ability from that one character class that can detect and disarm it--doesn't this just amount to a "gotcha moment" that promotes degenerate play and save scumming? Is it not poor design?

 

I'm not saying that every mageling should be tossing death at players with every utterence. However, I feel death spells are an excellent and game enhancing aspect to any magic system. They are a risk a player might face, just as any other. Anyone who thinks that all players should be able to blunder into all encounters unaware and unprepared yet survive should go watch a movie instead of play a game. Consequence has to be real for choice and tactics to matter.

 

When threats are severe, no longer do you just load up on fireball spells. You need to be prepared. You need to scout for traps and enemies. Suddenly skills, spells, and classes that are generally regarded as useless are now incredibly helpful. Instant death spells should be in this game for the same reason that anything else which can quickly kill a player character should. If you're worried about poor design making this kind of feature awful, then you should instead have considered kickstarting a project with a company you trust.

[Lephys]

If you're worried about poor design making this kind of feature awful, then you should instead have considered kickstarting a project with a company you trust.

*chin stroke of pondrance*... I'd say quite the opposite, really:

 

Will PE feature "Instant Death" spells and abilities like Desintegration and Imprisonment from BG?. Or skills with similar function - maybe Headshot for handguns. Something with chance to kill PC instantly, unless he will be lucky to roll a saving throw?

 

 

 

No. Save or die effects are really easy to abuse offensively (as a player) and they require either luck or hard counters to defend against as a player -- neither of which are very interesting, tactically.

 

PCs can be downed in a small number of hits (possibly one if the enemy is powerful enough), but that has less to do with luck and more to do with the raw power difference between the attacker and the defender.

 

Accuracy in PE, like the IE games, is determined primarily by character stats, not player skill. Hard counters in a single-player RPG are obnoxious, IMO

 

Because either you're prepped for them or you aren't. If you aren't, you reload and voila, you are. If you prepared save-or-die tactic that the enemy is immune to, you're hard countered through no fault of your own. If not, you steamroll the enemy.

Or you do what many players do, which is reload until the primary target fails its save and the entire tactical challenge of the fight is rendered trivial/pointless.

I backed a game from a company I trust... to never reduce combat down to hard kills, hard counters, and the chancical dice rolls that decide your entire fate. I thank them for that dedication to tactical, meaningful decisions and deaths in combat.

 

Also, for what it's worth, traps don't move around of their own free will, target whomever they choose, and kill you instantly regardless of armor/HP values. Also, I don't think trap-detection will be restricted to a particular class in P:E. So, no, I'd say powerful traps that can potentially kill you if you jog around in strange dungeons without a care in the world aren't really in the same boat as foes that can gamble your life away on a whim.

[Stun]

I backed a game from a company I trust... to never reduce combat down to hard kills, hard counters, and the chancical dice rolls that decide your entire fate. I thank them for that dedication to tactical, meaningful decisions and deaths in combat.

Not sure what you're babbling about. The inclusion of some death spells, and even some death traps does not reduce a game down to hard kills, hard counters and "chancical dice rolls that decide your entire fate".

 

But it IS fair to say that their exclusion constitutes a sharp departure from the very spirit of IE games - which, btw, is something that Obsidian should be mindful of in light of the way they so ruthlessly, and shamelessly named dropped those IE games during their kickstarter campaign in order to attract backers. Of course, I don't think they're going to be simply discarding those "chancical dice rolls". And you, Lephys, are going to be eating crow when the game comes out and you discover that life & death level LUCK will indeed be playing a huge factor in combat and dungeon crawling, despite your interpretation of Sawyer's post.

 

Also, for what it's worth, traps don't move around of their own free will, target whomever they choose, and kill you instantly regardless of armor/HP values.

WTF! What difference does that make?

 

If a game has, say, a disentigrate trap, which can insta-kill its victims if they fail their saving throw, then the system has ALREADY met each and every one of the whiny gripes you've made on this thread. Period. The fact that the trap is stationary and indescriminate makes no difference whatsoever here.

 

So yeah, cut the inane bs already and tell it like it is: You don't want fatal traps. After all, ANY trap worth taking seriously requires a hard counter. Unless your idea of dealing with traps is to just run right through them as if they're not there. (the act of disarming a trap is, by definition, the deployment of a hard counter)

Edited June 25, 2013 by Stun

[Morgulon the Wise]

I think traps with instant death can be real fun - if you can avoid them/disarm them in an appropriate way. Some games are built upon that. Only thing to mention is, that your capabilities to control your characters in such dangerous situations should be as best as they can.. I remember that the pathfinding in the IE games were much too vague for balancing on a marked line which made some of the traps quite a punishment. Remember the situations when your thief wanted to disarm a trap on the floor and went into the red zone before just before he could begin to disarm it? In this case instant death traps would be very discouraging.

 

Traps without ID effects should be either: calling additional foes/ let them prepare for battle (it would be awesome if some foes aren't prepared all the time), give you a malus directly in a fight which is going on or let you for example fall into another layer of the dungeon.

[Stun]

Good story writing + halfway decent game design can work together to make insta-death traps the *bar none* most compelling part of a dungeon's presentation.

 

For one, they can, in fact, hinge on the plot. For example, you're tasked with rescuing an imprisoned NPC. And this NPC happens to be behind bars.... and these bars have death runes that you must somehow get past to free the prisoner. Or.... you see a giant treasure chest, and you know it contains something within that the story hints is *awesome*. But of course, if you want this treasure, you're going to have to find away to get past the insta-death trap upon the chest.

 

But insta-death traps do not need to be magic based. An unstable bridge over a huge pool of acid can also serve as an instant death, for those who fail a "reflex" saving throw and fall off it, or if they weren't Hasted and didn't run across fast enough. Or if they weren't smart enough to look down and notice that loose plank that you need to avoid stepping on...etc.

 

As for bad pathfinding. Sure, that's the bane of all gameplans. The solution though isn't to dumb down the game so that bad pathfinding isn't a problem. The solution is to eliminate that bad pathfinding in the first place.

Edited June 25, 2013 by Stun

[Karkarov]

I see the troll, oops I mean Stun, is still at it.

 

Let me break it down for you one last time.

 

Sawyer said no instead death gimicks, spells or traps.  Your entire conversation is a waste of time.  This game is not Baldur's Gate.  There is no "rezzing" the dead guy, they are dead.  Including the kind of cheesy, boring, stupid things you think of as tactical in a game with permadeath would be beyond stupid.  It would be a flat out bad design in every sense of the word.  It would only promote save scumming and the "degenerative gameplay" they have been saying they are totally against from day one.  Fortunately Obsidian actually understands game design and realizes this.

 

The guy with the Firkraag screenshot isn't saying how cool that was, he is pointing out how lame it was.

[anubite]

Player getting instant-death skills? Probablly not. Too hard to balance and not all that fun.

Enemies getting instant-death skills? Yes, please. But not luck/chance based skills - like - the enemy has an instant-kill fire attack, but he telegraphs where he's going to throw it before he throws it, so you can move your party members out of its path. That's perfectly fine.

[Morgulon the Wise]

@ Karkarov: So why is this topic not closed yet? I think at least some mod is interested in this instant death-discussion... and not only the pro/contra

 

It would be a shame if noone would at least think about some instant-death mechanics in P:E and how it could be implemented. Even if the devs did state that there will be nothing like that. Because it is also a game for the players and I want to have a little influence on it.

 

(It is true though that in the last pages Lephys and Stun were a bit ... persistent. At some point I browsed most of it ... What influence do these guys want to have with that?)

[Lephys]

But it IS fair to say that their exclusion constitutes a sharp departure from the very spirit of IE games - which, btw, is something that Obsidian should be mindful of in light of the way they so ruthlessly, and shamelessly named dropped those IE games during their kickstarter campaign in order to attract backers.

Oh, we're still stuck on the exclusion thing? Well, we'd better include fetch quests, since excluding those would obviously result in a crappy variety of quests. Oh, and lightning storms! Random weather that can just strike you dead at any second while you're traveling about! We should put that in, because NOT-putting-it-in would be a far worse scenario. And there should be infinite skills and abilities, because there's always another skill/ability to be thought up, and excluding those poor, poor skills and abilities from the game makes the game so much more lacking in vibrance.

 

Riddle me this, Stun: When is it tactically a bad idea to instantly kill something as opposed to actually having to reduce it to 0 HP through the use of a variety of other tactics? How is that any different from having a spell that deals infinite damage? A spell that deals infinite damage can still not-work on certain foes, or be prevented from casting, or be resisted via saving throw. So can a spell that deals 50 damage. So, if you have a menagerie of spells at your disposal, all of which do various types of damage and work on various types of targets, and then you have a spell that does however-much-health-that-thing-has damage (basically infinite, since the HP value of your not-yet-chosen target is indefinite), when would you say "Hmm... I just wanna deal 50 damage to this thing, instead of infinity, because tactics."?

 

And I swear if you say "Omg, you could totally miss it, or it could have high resistance, or... or...", then I'm just giving up all my faith in your ability to partake in rational conversation.

 

Also, @Morgulon: I'm not against insta-killing traps. Just insta-killing sentient beings within dynamic, tactical combat.

[Lephys]

(It is true though that in the last pages Lephys and Stun were a bit ... persistent. At some point I browsed most of it ... What influence do these guys want to have with that?)

Forgive me for finding it amusing that people decide there's too much discussion going on in a discussion topic. I wish Stun would listen to reason, true. But, I'm here to discuss Instant Death. Why would I want to do that? Hmm... because we're in a discussion forum, and this topic is "instant death," maybe? If people are sick of just seeing mine and Stun's responses to one another, how about chiming into the discussion with something else? I can only provide my own perspective on this, and Stun can only provide his. The more the merrier. What are we going to do... bite you for joining in?

 

If you don't think there's anything else to say on the matter, then don't read this topic. If you DO think there's other stuff to be considered here, then, by all means, let's hear it. I'd love to hear it.

[Stun]

Oh, we're still stuck on the exclusion thing? Well, we'd better include fetch quests, since excluding those would obviously result in a crappy variety of quests.

Yep. Bet your bottom dollar that they will be included - and for that reason. Never played an RPG that didn't have them in spades.

 

Oh, and lightning storms! Random weather that can just strike you dead at any second while you're traveling about!

....Unless you're protected from electricity. Of course, for a game to pull this off well, it can't be completely random. As proper lightning storms never are. Instead, there are always nature-based warning signs. And in a story based game, you'd probably get hints ahead of time that a coming storm could be deadly and that you should either avoid it or prepare for it. Oh wait.... That's the way it is with Death spells already.

 

But... baby steps. lets not get ahead of ourselves here. we should be asking the devs to encorporate interactive weather effects first, as that's a tall order by itself. Then later we can pontificate on the details.

 

 

Riddle me this, Stun: When is it tactically a bad idea to instantly kill something as opposed to actually having to reduce it to 0 HP through the use of a variety of other tactics?

You mean - when is it tactically a bad idea to use an insta-death spell on an opponent? Oh I don't know...I guess when that opponent has high magic resistance, or if that opponent has racial immunities to death spells (ie. Undead, golems). In these 2 cases it would be a bad idea to use your death spells since they're probably going to fail you.

 

 

How is that any different from having a spell that deals infinite damage?

I imagine the differences lie in the fact that Death spells do not deal damage if they succeed. They produce a *different* effect. My apologies for pointing this out to you 13745 times already. Edited June 25, 2013 by Stun

[Lephys]

-____-

 

Well, Stun. Congratulations. You, sir, are officially irrational beyond hope. Good luck with that.