Sawyerism Distilled - an interview with Josh Sawyer at Iron Tower Studio

[Helm]

Which means that the only strategic element of the health system will be the fact that you want to take as little damage as possible. This is is the same for every game, you always try to avoid taking damage as much as possible.

 

By removing healers and healing potions you are removing two strategic elements and in turn are simplifying the game strategically and tactically. That certainly is a huge problem if you ask me.

 

The first clear statement I read said that healing magic will be rare. Then someone said there would be none at all. Current stance seems to be that it's rare. So I'm building on that when I'm saying that you'll want to be very careful with your health potions and possible rare spells.

 

How is that system inferior to IE style DnD games? Where you could tag "cast healing spells on rest" and then just spam that rest button, considering that even a lvl 1 cleric or druid could cast healing spells? The only thing it accomplished was forcing you to include at least one of either class in your party (= no brainer).

I am not a fan of sleep spamming either (or even sleeping to heal for that matter), but I have to say that you couldn't sleep spam everywhere in the IE-games, in certain areas it was actually impossible, because you were constantly swarmed by enemies (not to mention that had to sleep for many days to even fully heal your team). These were always the areas where you actually really needed to heal. You always had to make sure that you had a healer and enough healing potions as a strategic element.

 

Healing was tactically also very important in the IE games. I do believe it will be possible to heal your stamina in PE also, it will not only regenerate rapidly by itself.

If Sawyer gets rid of the rapidly regenerating stamina bar (health bar 1), includes stamina potions, (very rare) health potions and healers then that would be a very interesting, original and excellent mechanic imo.

 

Btw, none of the classes in the IE-games are required. For instance, you could have all fighters or all mages and still play and win the game. Sure, such unorthodox combinations make the game harder, but it is possible.

 

Which means that the only strategic element of the health system will be the fact that you want to take as little damage as possible. This is is the same for every game, you always try to avoid taking damage as much as possible.

 

By removing healers and healing potions you are removing two strategic elements and in turn are simplifying the game strategically and tactically. That certainly is a huge problem if you ask me.

 

Except that, in other games, you're 100% expected to HAVE to use healing to complete a battle. It wasn't really a big deal that you made absolutely sure you took as little damage as possible through strategic decision-making as it was that you avoided taking too much damage in too little a time. All the damage and HP numbers were designed with healing in mind, or the dedicated healing classes and overly abundant healing potions would be useless.

Not necessarily. There are ways to mitigate or drastically reduce damage, even though health potions did play a large part. There were many ways to win a battle in an IE game and In many situations healing was actually the less efficient tactic, sometimes it was clearly the best tactic.... and not only tactically but strategically.

[Tychoxi]

hmmm, I like the dialogues being a way of developing my character and reputation, and the short and long term consequences... but I want my dialogue options to be determined by attributes/skills and their success based on relevant skill-checks! I know we'll be having dumb dialogue (I recall correctly right?) so maybe I'm worrying without real reasons.

[Sacred_Path]

Btw, none of the classes in the IE-games are required. For instance, you could have all fighters or all mages and still play and win the game. Sure, such unorthodox combinations make the game harder, but it is possible.

 

There's a difference between "it's possible" and "it's viable" though. Playing without a healer was like running a race while shooting yourself in the foot. Hopefully in P:E there will be no such imbalance in regards to classes.

 

 

Not necessarily. There are ways to mitigate or drastically reduce damage, even though health potions did play a large part. There were many ways to win a battle in an IE game and In many situations healing was actually the less efficient tactic, sometimes it was clearly the best tactic.... and not only tactically but strategically.

 

This is somewhat related to the above. While hacking/ healing/ hacking wasn't always the best strategy, it was enough of a strategy for large parts of the game.

[Gfted1]

How is being able to heal stamina a benefit? Health only goes down and does so with 100% of attacks. At some point you will be sitting at full stamina and 1 health, effectively removing that character from use as the next hit will kill them.

[Ganrich]

I have to agree with Lephys on the topic of what is more strategic in regards to healing. Strategy, to me anyway, has always been about having a game plan prior to combat. I feel that dedicated healers are reactionary at best and reduce the need for actual tactics. It is more tactical to use abilities to reduce damage taken than to run in guns blazing and realize Bob the barbarian took 3 big hits in a row and saying "Joe Cleric go heal!!!"

 

I very much send my rogue/stealthy ahead to see what the enemy layout is, and then decide my tactics accordingly when I can. I look at a group of possible enemies that are currently neutral, but my not be after we have a chat, and ask "what should I do if this goes south?"

 

I would prefer our cleric/Druid/chanter classes, whose d&d brethren were capable of healing, be more capable in preventing damage as opposed to negating damage already taken. I would prefer it be tactical vs reactionary. However, I feel it is a tight rope the devs must walk because if the duration on such abilities and spells is too long you run the risk of over buffing and combat suffering for It by being too easy. If the abilities and spells are too potent you have similar issues.

 

With healing not being prominent it gives me hope that they aren't taking a Dragon Age approach to combat and adding taunt mechanics to warrior/paladin/etc classes. This was the one thing that made me dislike playing the game more than one or two time since it released. It made all combat encounters identical with each play through. Where, in the old IE games (and similarly styled crpgs), Having a different party makeup could and would drastically change how your tactics played out.

 

This is, in the end, why I loath tank and spank mechanics. You can add whatever you want to an encounter with aggro mechanics in place, but in the end... Tank holds aggro, healers keep him alive, dps fires at boss for big damage. This system is heralded by many as being tactical, but in many ways it isn't. It is only in the game to streamline production of content by allowing devs to benchmark encounters more easily and thus pump out content faster. It is a quantity over quality scenario. This works in MMO design because pumping out content is required to maintain subs, but incredibly stupid in single player tactical crpg design.

[Helm]

How is being able to heal stamina a benefit? Health only goes down and does so with 100% of attacks. At some point you will be sitting at full stamina and 1 health, effectively removing that character from use as the next hit will kill them.

Well, you should be able to heal both imo. The stamina healing potions could be uncommon and the health potions could be very rare or something.

 

 

I feel that dedicated healers are reactionary at best and reduce the need for actual tactics. It is more tactical to use abilities to reduce damage taken than to run in guns blazing and realize Bob the barbarian took 3 big hits in a row and saying "Joe Cleric go heal!!!"

Having Bob the Barbarian wait in a corner until his stamina (main health bar) has rapidly healed from those 3 big hits increases the need for tactics? Interesting.

 

I really do not think that CoD style healing requires the player to make wiser tactical and strategical choices if you ask me. ^^

[Ganrich]

[

I feel that dedicated healers are reactionary at best and reduce the need for actual tactics. It is more tactical to use abilities to reduce damage taken than to run in guns blazing and realize Bob the barbarian took 3 big hits in a row and saying "Joe Cleric go heal!!!"

Having Bob the Barbarian wait in a corner until his stamina (main health bar) has rapidly healed from those 3 big hits increases the need for tactics? Interesting.

 

I really do not think that CoD style healing requires the player to make wiser tactical and strategical choices if you ask me. ^^

 

I don't think hiding Bob in the corner is what I was insinuating. I specifically mentioned spells and abilities that negate damage. Using tactics to put shields on Bob preemptively as opposed to hitting him with heals reactively. EG you see he has 3 enemies attacking him, and the priest, cleric, mage, or bard buff him with a spell that increase AC or DR, perhaps both.

 

I would never implement CoD ideas into a rpg, I am a battlefield fan.

[Helm]

[

I feel that dedicated healers are reactionary at best and reduce the need for actual tactics. It is more tactical to use abilities to reduce damage taken than to run in guns blazing and realize Bob the barbarian took 3 big hits in a row and saying "Joe Cleric go heal!!!"

Having Bob the Barbarian wait in a corner until his stamina (main health bar) has rapidly healed from those 3 big hits increases the need for tactics? Interesting.

 

I really do not think that CoD style healing requires the player to make wiser tactical and strategical choices if you ask me. ^^

 

I don't think hiding Bob in the corner is what I was insinuating. I specifically mentioned spells and abilities that negate damage. Using tactics to put shields on Bob preemptively as opposed to hitting him with heals reactively. EG you see he has 3 enemies attacking him, and the priest, cleric, mage, or bard buff him with a spell that increase AC or DR, perhaps both.

Well, buffing was usually always the main defensive tactic anyway. You could have 10000 healing potions, if your tactics were fundamentally flawed then they didn't help you one bit anyway.

 

I would never implement CoD ideas into a rpg, I am a battlefield fan.

[Gfted1]

How is being able to heal stamina a benefit? Health only goes down and does so with 100% of attacks. At some point you will be sitting at full stamina and 1 health, effectively removing that character from use as the next hit will kill them.

Well, you should be able to heal both imo. The stamina healing potions could be uncommon and the health potions could be very rare or something.

 

I agree but currently thats not how the mechanics are being described. Stamina will self regenerate both inside and outside of combat but health can only be regenerated by resting. No potions, no spells, no abilities....only a good nights sleep will fix that dagger stuck in your neck.

 

I wonder what will happen if say three NPC's die during a battle. Will all their stuff spill out onto the floor in a pile that you have to pick up and distribute amongst the remaining live members while you haul them back to town? Is no resurrection only for Ironman mode? It would have to be, right? Otherwise simple attrition will whittle your crew down to only you by the time you reach chaper two.

[PrimeJunta]

You know, @Gfted1, I don't think the designers are complete morons.

[Helm]

How is being able to heal stamina a benefit? Health only goes down and does so with 100% of attacks. At some point you will be sitting at full stamina and 1 health, effectively removing that character from use as the next hit will kill them.

Well, you should be able to heal both imo. The stamina healing potions could be uncommon and the health potions could be very rare or something.

 

I agree but currently thats not how the mechanics are being described. Stamina will self regenerate both inside and outside of combat but health can only be regenerated by resting.

It was just a recommendation in the hope that Sawyer and the boys read it and come to their senses.

 

No potions, no spells, no abilities....only a good nights sleep will fix that dagger stuck in your neck.

Maybe the magic healing fairy will come and heal you in your sleep in PE.

[Gfted1]

You know, @Gfted1, I don't think the designers are complete morons.

 

Agreed.

[PrimeJunta]

You know, @Gfted1, I don't think the designers are complete morons.

 

Agreed.

 

Awesome. Then how come you're speculating that they're going to design something that's for all intents and purposes unplayable?

[Gfted1]

You know, @Gfted1, I don't think the designers are complete morons.

 

Agreed.

 

Awesome. Then how come you're speculating that they're going to design something that's for all intents and purposes unplayable?

 

Unplayable? What I described is exactly what Ironman mode will be in P:E (no resurrection). Im taking it a step further and wondering what "normal" mode will play like. We already know healing is out the window so I hope there is a way to resurrect in "normal". And I hope its cheap, cause Im pretty sure I'll lose my first NPC while performing the first quest: clearing the basement of rats.

[Malekith]

How is being able to heal stamina a benefit? Health only goes down and does so with 100% of attacks. At some point you will be sitting at full stamina and 1 health, effectively removing that character from use as the next hit will kill them.

Well, you should be able to heal both imo. The stamina healing potions could be uncommon and the health potions could be very rare or something.

 

I agree but currently thats not how the mechanics are being described. Stamina will self regenerate both inside and outside of combat but health can only be regenerated by resting. No potions, no spells, no abilities....only a good nights sleep will fix that dagger stuck in your neck.

 

I wonder what will happen if say three NPC's die during a battle. Will all their stuff spill out onto the floor in a pile that you have to pick up and distribute amongst the remaining live members while you haul them back to town? Is no resurrection only for Ironman mode? It would have to be, right? Otherwise simple attrition will whittle your crew down to only you by the time you reach chaper two.

Have you played fallout 1&2? No resurection either.And in P:E you will control your companions in battle so its even easier for you to keep them alive.

[PrimeJunta]

@Gfted1: First off, we already know a lot of that stuff. One, at normal difficulty, when a party member's health goes to 0, they won't die; instead, they'll be maimed. We don't know what exactly that means, but I would expect something unpleasant but fixable. So resurrection won't be needed. I understand that with permadeath enabled, they will be gone. They've been pretty unequivocal about not having resurrection magic available at all.

 

Second, since health will be regenerated on rest, attrition across chapters just ain't gonna happen. They're bleepin' unlikely to put in chapters with no resting possibilities at all.

 

IOW, and pardon my French, but it sounds a lot like you're making up concerns out of thin air. There are legitimate things to gripe about re the mechanics, and definitely ways in which they could go wrong, but what you're sayin' ain't it.

[Gfted1]

Have you played fallout 1&2? No resurection either.

 

No, havent played either. No resurrection even in normal mode? Ill bet you could you heal your party in the field though.

 

And in P:E you will control your companions in battle so its even easier for you to keep them alive.

 

How so? There are zero healing capabilities in the P:E universe. Well, except sleep, and you cant sleep in combat or run back to the inn.

[Gfted1]

@Gfted1: First off, we already know a lot of that stuff. One, at normal difficulty, when a party member's health goes to 0, they won't die; instead, they'll be maimed. We don't know what exactly that means, but I would expect something unpleasant but fixable.

 

I see. No doubt a good nights sleep will unmaim you, since theres no other mechanic available to do the job.

 

So resurrection won't be needed. I understand that with permadeath enabled, they will be gone. They've been pretty unequivocal about not having resurrection magic available at all.

 

Huh, I wasnt aware that resurrection had definately been removed from "normal" mode. Bummer.

 

Second, since health will be regenerated on rest, attrition across chapters just ain't gonna happen. They're bleepin' unlikely to put in chapters with no resting possibilities at all.

 

I didnt say anything about healing between chapters. I said that with no resurrection you will be a lonely fellow by chapter two. But I guess if nobody can die, that wont be an issue.

[Ulquiorra]

while performing the first quest: clearing the basement of rats.

 

Mayby this time it will be cats

 

 

Bogie-man Warcat lvl 1

 

 

or

 

Sofa crawler cat lvl 2

 

 

a were-rat cat lvl 3

 

 

 

and at the end of the game

 

Cat-Mephisto lvl 40

 

Edited January 7, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[Malekith]

Have you played fallout 1&2? No resurection either.

 

No, havent played either. No resurrection even in normal mode? Ill bet you could you heal your party in the field though.

 

And in P:E you will control your companions in battle so its even easier for you to keep them alive.

 

How so? There are zero healing capabilities in the P:E universe. Well, except sleep, and you cant sleep in combat or run back to the inn.

If you haven't played them,you couldn't know.In Fallouts you had no control of companions, so in a battle they could accidentally shot each other,and with plasma weapons one-shot each other.And no,there was no resurection even in easy.Healing items yes

Edited January 7, 2013 by Malekith

[PrimeJunta]

@Gfted1: First off, we already know a lot of that stuff. One, at normal difficulty, when a party member's health goes to 0, they won't die; instead, they'll be maimed. We don't know what exactly that means, but I would expect something unpleasant but fixable.

 

I see. No doubt a good nights sleep will unmaim you, since theres no other mechanic available to do the job.

 

Since they haven't stated how maiming works, all we can do is speculate. Maybe you have to go to a bone-setter, then rest. Maybe there is un-maiming magic at a temple (but not portable.) Maybe there's a skill like Doctor in the original Fallout. Maybe they haven't even decided yet how to handle it.

 

So resurrection won't be needed. I understand that with permadeath enabled, they will be gone. They've been pretty unequivocal about not having resurrection magic available at all.

 

Huh, I wasnt aware that resurrection had definately been removed from "normal" mode. Bummer.

 

Huh indeed. There is no dying in "normal" mode. Therefore, what possible use would resurrection have?

 

Second, since health will be regenerated on rest, attrition across chapters just ain't gonna happen. They're bleepin' unlikely to put in chapters with no resting possibilities at all.

 

I didnt say anything about healing between chapters. I said that with no resurrection you will be a lonely fellow by chapter two. You are going to have battle deaths, yes?

 

Uh. No. In normal mode, if somebody's health drops to zero, they're maimed, not dead. Presumably if the entire party is knocked out (with zero stamina or health), it's game over, in which case there's nobody left to use any resurrection magic even if it was available.

 

Once more: there is no combat death in normal mode, ergo, there is no resurrection either. With combat death enabled, the consequences will be permanent.

[Lephys]

Not necessarily. There are ways to mitigate or drastically reduce damage, even though health potions did play a large part. There were many ways to win a battle in an IE game and In many situations healing was actually the less efficient tactic, sometimes it was clearly the best tactic.... and not only tactically but strategically.

 

That was poor wording on my part. What I meant was, throughout the game, combat is designed with the ability to reverse damage in mind, because it's some classes' core mechanic and healing potions cost money and such. It can, of course, be designed well or crappily (Dragon Age: Origins required like 800 healing potions per battle sometimes, and in some games healing potions are so useless that they're not even worth the 2 silver they cost). In other words, somewhere in the game, the method of best combat performance was to intentionally take large amounts of damage, then spend time with another character (or money and time acquiring and using potions in combat) to reverse that damage. The only tactical decision such a situation forced you to make was "Make sure I don't take two of those in a row before healing." It's like playing tug of war while trying to kill the other team at the same time. When do you spare people to go chop at the other team, and when do you run them back to pull on the rope again? Strategy involved? Yes, but I think it's better to just have deeper combat strategy and do away with the tug-of-war all together.

 

Even in the typical system with dedicated, abundant healing, you're still expected to mitigate damage and use combat tactics. Whatever strategy is provided by the healing tug-of-war is basically just a trade-off for deeper initial mitigation tactics (which are already present, no matter what.) You can't have both without negating dedicated healing. "Oh, potions and Clerics are in, but it's actually quite, quite easy to play the entire game without them." Boom, you don't have an enemy that deals 90% of your health in damage with a single spell, because the game is balanced for the possibility that you don't have healers and potions. But, if the worst attack in the game does 10% of your health, then anyone using healing is playing the game on ultra-easy, unless potions and healing are so limited that they can only heal like 5% of your health per minute in combat, in which case you're back to the "So, wait, we essentially can't heal?" situation. So, that's what I mean by "in a game with healing, the design expects you to use it."

 

How is being able to heal stamina a benefit? Health only goes down and does so with 100% of attacks. At some point you will be sitting at full stamina and 1 health, effectively removing that character from use as the next hit will kill them.

 

I'm really not trying to be snide here, but that's like asking "What's the point in healing potions and spells (that rely on mana potions to be available in proper quantities) if their availability always just goes down and you can't get more until you get to a 'rest' area (aka town/merchant)?"

 

I know it's weird because of the terminology, and we're not used to a hitpoint pool functioning like that, but your health basically is 4-times your Stamina (typically what we're used to calling "Health" in P:E) worth of healing (the same as potions and healing spells in typical games' systems). I thought the exact same thing when I first read about the system, because I was thinking "Wait... we can't heal?" But, we can heal, really. And yes, they still have to worry about resting availability, and possibly Health damage mitigation (Stamina-only damage, perhaps, as is being talked about in the Miss topic and such), and regular health pool/damage balancing (just like any other game). And yes, we don't get to manage healing separately. But, now, your health management is directly related to your tactical combat decisions, rather than being a separate decision of "Do I try to do some more damage, or do I instead stop to negate some damage?"

 

How is this more tactical? Well, instead of saying "My fighter has twice the hitpoints of my other characters, so obviously I'll have him to absorb some damage, because then I can just heal him back up after the battle," you instead have a situation (assuming the game's designed accordingly) in which your fighter's abilities allow you to manage your health on a situational basis. i.e. "Because my fighter blocked these enemies from getting to attack anyone else and used his shield abilities to strategically reduce their power attacks to glancing blows (or maybe full misses/blocks depending on how Obsidian decides to ultimately handle that), the party's health damage was efficiently reduced."

 

Again, the game has to be designed around this level of strategy in abilities and skills, and the general way in which combat works, but the lack of constant damage negation fully supports this level of strategy.

 

Also, I'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but I still haven't heard any specifics about whether or not the characters' health will always be at a 4:1 ratio to their stamina. All they've said for sure (that I know of) is that the damage ratio between Stamina and Health will be 1:4. So, Health pool size could be another factor in survivability.

 

Once more: there is no combat death in normal mode, ergo, there is no resurrection either. With combat death enabled, the consequences will be permanent.

 

I think he meant "resurrection" in the "Your character gets back into combat from a state of uselessness" sense, and not necessarily the "Your character is now alive again instead of actually dead" sense. Possibly.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Lephys

[Gfted1]

I'm really not trying to be snide here, but that's like asking "What's the point in healing potions and spells (that rely on mana potions to be available in proper quantities) if their availability always just goes down and you can't get more until you get to a 'rest' area (aka town/merchant)?"

 

I know it's weird because of the terminology, and we're not used to a hitpoint pool functioning like that, but your health basically is 4-times your Stamina (typically what we're used to calling "Health" in P:E) worth of healing (the same as potions and healing spells in typical games' systems). I thought the exact same thing when I first read about the system, because I was thinking "Wait... we can't heal?" But, we can heal, really. And yes, they still have to worry about resting availability, and possibly Health damage mitigation (Stamina-only damage, perhaps, as is being talked about in the Miss topic and such), and regular health pool/damage balancing (just like any other game). And yes, we don't get to manage healing separately. But, now, your health management is directly related to your tactical combat decisions, rather than being a separate decision of "Do I try to do some more damage, or do I instead stop to negate some damage?"

 

How is this more tactical? Well, instead of saying "My fighter has twice the hitpoints of my other characters, so obviously I'll have him to absorb some damage, because then I can just heal him back up after the battle," you instead have a situation (assuming the game's designed accordingly) in which your fighter's abilities allow you to manage your health on a situational basis. i.e. "Because my fighter blocked these enemies from getting to attack anyone else and used his shield abilities to strategically reduce their power attacks to glancing blows (or maybe full misses/blocks depending on how Obsidian decides to ultimately handle that), the party's health damage was efficiently reduced."

 

Again, the game has to be designed around this level of strategy in abilities and skills, and the general way in which combat works, but the lack of constant damage negation fully supports this level of strategy.

 

Also, I'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but I still haven't heard any specifics about whether or not the characters' health will always be at a 4:1 ratio to their stamina. All they've said for sure (that I know of) is that the damage ratio between Stamina and Health will be 1:4. So, Health pool size could be another factor in survivability.

 

Heres where Im coming from. Presumably, if we cant miss, the mooks cant miss either. That means that 100% of the time you will be taking some damage per mook / per round. Yes? With that in mind now I look at the mechanic. Whatever the ratio, whatever the DR, whatever mitigating abilities, you WILL be taking damage to your health. There is no way other than resting to fix this so eventually, through sheer attrition, despise the players tactics, your entire party will reach a point of (even at full stamina) being low on health. Im ok with this so long as the "camping" mechanic isnt too punishing.

 

I hadnt considered a stamina only damage ability. Interesting.

[Lephys]

I'm really not trying to be snide here, but that's like asking "What's the point in healing potions and spells (that rely on mana potions to be available in proper quantities) if their availability always just goes down and you can't get more until you get to a 'rest' area (aka town/merchant)?"

 

I know it's weird because of the terminology, and we're not used to a hitpoint pool functioning like that, but your health basically is 4-times your Stamina (typically what we're used to calling "Health" in P:E) worth of healing (the same as potions and healing spells in typical games' systems). I thought the exact same thing when I first read about the system, because I was thinking "Wait... we can't heal?" But, we can heal, really. And yes, they still have to worry about resting availability, and possibly Health damage mitigation (Stamina-only damage, perhaps, as is being talked about in the Miss topic and such), and regular health pool/damage balancing (just like any other game). And yes, we don't get to manage healing separately. But, now, your health management is directly related to your tactical combat decisions, rather than being a separate decision of "Do I try to do some more damage, or do I instead stop to negate some damage?"

 

How is this more tactical? Well, instead of saying "My fighter has twice the hitpoints of my other characters, so obviously I'll have him to absorb some damage, because then I can just heal him back up after the battle," you instead have a situation (assuming the game's designed accordingly) in which your fighter's abilities allow you to manage your health on a situational basis. i.e. "Because my fighter blocked these enemies from getting to attack anyone else and used his shield abilities to strategically reduce their power attacks to glancing blows (or maybe full misses/blocks depending on how Obsidian decides to ultimately handle that), the party's health damage was efficiently reduced."

 

Again, the game has to be designed around this level of strategy in abilities and skills, and the general way in which combat works, but the lack of constant damage negation fully supports this level of strategy.

 

Also, I'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but I still haven't heard any specifics about whether or not the characters' health will always be at a 4:1 ratio to their stamina. All they've said for sure (that I know of) is that the damage ratio between Stamina and Health will be 1:4. So, Health pool size could be another factor in survivability.

 

Heres where Im coming from. Presumably, if we cant miss, the mooks cant miss either. That means that 100% of the time you will be taking some damage per mook / per round. Yes? With that in mind now I look at the mechanic. Whatever the ratio, whatever the DR, whatever mitigating abilities, you WILL be taking damage to your health. There is no way other than resting to fix this so eventually, through sheer attrition, despise the players tactics, your entire party will reach a point of (even at full stamina) being low on health. Im ok with this so long as the "camping" mechanic isnt too punishing.

 

Yeah. I understand where you're coming from. And I agree that the complete lack of missing does take something away from combat, regardless of how it's balanced. But, on the other hand, I think the impact of always taking SOME damage instead of sometimes taking NO damage seems way worse than it would be, once you played through a few combat encounters. And the game's going to be balanced with that finite health-pool-that-always-takes-damage-from-every-single-hit in mind. Sure, if you took Baldur's Gate and just took out all the misses and healing, and forced the P:E Stamina/Health system in there, then called it a day, the results would be utterly, utterly terrible. But, between how much health you have, how much damage you deal, how much damage enemies deal, and the spacing of "camp" areas, I doubt we'll really notice much of a problem even if they don't end up implementing some form of misses. We would just miss the ability to miss is all. The slightly different pace of combat progression.

 

That's all I'm saying. Mathematically, it could be balanced to have almost the exact same pacing as the typical system we're used to.

[PrimeJunta]

I think he meant "resurrection" in the "Your character gets back into combat from a state of uselessness" sense, and not necessarily the "Your character is now alive again instead of actually dead" sense. Possibly.

 

I'm pretty sure that type of 'resurrection' is in. If maiming meant that a character became useless, that would be a close functional equivalent of permadeath; no matter how much you liked him, it's unlikely you'd want to be wheeling your rogue around in a wheelchair when going dungeoneering.

 

Nah, I think it's more likely that @Gfted1 is just confused.