On PE difficulty mechanics, objective xp and combat, stealth, sweet-talking

[Stun]

 

Sure, but this was not a case of chance overriding challenge.

If it isn't, then could you provide me with an example of chance overriding challenge, and explain how the two scenarios are different?

 

In BG2? Chance will never override challenge, unless you're a sh*tty player. Or it's your first time, and you're the victim of the chance.

 

Also, the issue already exists when there's a chance to do it. Being able to make it a sure thing is compounding the issue, if that's possible to do.

No. Lephy's, these "sure thing" examples that people have given on this thread (and on other threads where we have discussed BG2's combat) are "tips and tricks" that are typically only discovered after playing the game for hundreds and hundreds of hours. Besides, All great games have them. It's a POSITIVE, not some flaw. The only games that don't have them tend to be the ones with mind-numbingly boring, one dimensional, button mashing combat.... like Dungeon Siege 1, or Dragon Age 2.

 

The issue is with the extent of the effect of the spell/ability on your offensive capabilities, relative to the thing that's supposed to be difficult. And, the argument could be made, "what if the devs WANT you to be able to turn any difficult fight into an easy one?" To which I call bad design. Pointlessly bad design. It just plain doesn't make any sense. That's basically putting in fights that are only difficult if you do it wrong.

Oh, Right, Right. I forgot. Fights need to be perfectly symmetrically balanced things, with length guarantees, or else! Indeed. It's not Fair that your Cleric gets to use Harm... against a Dragon who's got Wing Buffets, Breath Attacks, 80% Magic resistance, 5 attacks per round, Spells of his own, etc. <----By the way... about that last one. Yeah, forgot to mention... in Throne of Bhaal, dragons like Saladrex and Draconis usually put Protection from Magic Weapons or Spell Immunity (necromancy) in their contingencies. Both of these spells make them immune to Harm.

 

Still think we've got "bad design" going on here?

 

 

It's simple: Imagine you're going to set up an obstacle course

Lets not. BG2's combat cannot be compared to some silly kids game at the park. It's far more complex. You know, you should try playing it some time.

 

No amount of chance reduction justifies the functional design of such a thing giving you a stupidly immense amount of power.

It does when the "chance reduction" slider can go from from 0 to 100, based on what the player can do. That's the definition of tactics.

 

 

 

Why can't you make a fireball that has a chance of covering the entire screen and dealing 8,000 damage? You can't.

You certainly can. But why would any gamer want to use it? If it covers the entire screen then it will kill its caster by design.

 

You're no more skillfully making the spell actually work than you are making that ultra-rare loot drop when you beef up all your loot-drop-percentages in an MMO

I beg to differ. No good player unleashes his valuable Death Spells without prepping the enemy first with a series of debuffs to insure that success is all but guaranteed. And With BG2, you can most definitely make it so that the enemy who isn't flat out immune to death magic, has no chance of successfully saving.

 

 

 

 

Show me a tactical/objective role that's being filled by these abilities,

1)Score a quick KO so you can move on without having to rest, or use up your heals

2)Play the role of the master of disaster

3)Outsmart the developers

4) It's friggin FUN. <----- go ahead, counter that.

 

 

that the game would severely lack without them.

Well, depends on the game. The Icewind dales would be fine without them. But BG2? BG2 would lose all its awesome. It would turn into a lesser game.... like the Icewind dales. Edited January 28, 2014 by Stun

[Yonjuro]

 

Sure, but this was not a case of chance overriding challenge.

If it isn't, then could you provide me with an example of chance overriding challenge, and explain how the two scenarios are different? 

 

 

 Sure. I once played BG2 as a solo Monk. For the Shadow Dragon and Firkraag I had some reasonable tactics in mind. The Shadow Dragon fight was hard. Unlike the Shadow Dragon, Firkraag died instantly from a quivering palm. Pure luck (also pure fun after the @#$%% Shadow Dragon nearly killing my PC), very unlikely to succeed; the only reason for trying it at all is because it's always there for a Monk.

 

 In Stun's play through, his stack of spells made his (otherwise crappy) Harm spell a sure thing. No luck involved and a clever use of available spells. 

 

 My disagreement was with your characterization of this tactic as being similar to a cheat code. His tactic was a skillful use of what was available. But, more on that in moment:

 

 

If the argument is: Some idiot can cast harm and then repeatedly reload and cast it again until the dragon dies - well so what?

Nope. The argument is, some even-non-idiot can cast harm and have it work, not have to reload, and kill the dragon the following turn. Even if they didn't have any elaborate, scheming plan to make the dragon easy. They simply were offered the ability to take Harm, and invest in it, and they did. And then, luck happened. You might as well just put a button at the entrance to the cave, that, when pressed, MIGHT kill the dragon (or, in this case, reduce it to 1HP), and have it take 1-turn to press. That would be ridiculous, right? But, it's okay as long as it's an optional ability, for some reason.

 

 

 This is perfectly reasonable argument. Why have a 'Harm' spell in the game at all?

 

 Perhaps it shouldn't be there, but if we were going to debate that, a reasonable argument for why it should is:

 

 a. It's really kind of a crappy spell by itself. That is, the probability of success is low enough that the expected value of the spell is lower than many other spell of its level - I've never bothered with it for that reason. So, Harm does no harm (to the game).

 

 b. There may be a skillful way to use this otherwise crappy spell - in fact, we've seen an example of how a cleric/mage can use it. So, Harm adds something interesting to the game.

 

 

tldr; The fact that Harm has an interesting use is an argument for having spells like that. 

[Lephys]

Oh, Right, Right. I forgot. Fights need to be perfectly symmetrically balanced things, with length guarantees, or else!

Yep, 'cause that's exactly what I said. Man... you just... you get me, Stun. *tear*

 

Yeah, forgot to mention... in Throne of Bhaal, dragons like Saladrex and Draconis usually put Protection from Magic Weapons or Spell Immunity (necromancy) in their contingencies. Both of these spells make them immune to Harm.

Well, then a round of applause for the people who made deicisons in the Throne of Bhaal's design.

 

Still think we've got "bad design" going on here?

If by "here" you mean "this new, Throne of Bhaal scenario that I, Stun, know for a fact that you, Lephys, weren't even referring to," then no. Now, if you meant the scenario in which you can kill a huge dragon in 2 turns, then yes. I'm not sure why my mind would've suddenly changed, so the "still think the same thing?" question is admittedly a bit puzzling.

 

Lets not. BG2's combat cannot be compared to some silly kids game at the park. It's far more complex. You know, you should try playing it some time.

It's not my fault you don't comprehend the function of metaphor. I wasn't comparing BG2's combat to an obstacle course. I was comparing the design of a video game encounter with the goal/function of challenge in mind to the design of an obstacle course with the goal/function of challenge in mind.

 

And, sidenote: just for what it's worth, military personnel train on obstacle courses, and they are not kids. Nor are they in a park. Nor are they playing a game. So, completely unrelated to the point, but I'm baffled by your arbitrary simplification of obstacle courses.

 

It does when the "chance reduction" slider can go from from 0 to 100, based on what the player can do. That's the definition of tactics.

Really? I thought it was:

 

"1. ( usually used with a singular verb ) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.

2. ( used with a plural verb ) the maneuvers themselves."

 

I didn't know "I'll allocate all my points throughout the game so that I have the highest percentage chance of landing a Harm spell!" was a tactic. Tactics are what you do within the scope of a given battle. You can change tactics mid-battle, multiple times, even. You can't get to a dragon, then decide you'd rather rebuild your entire character to no-longer boost your chances of using Harm, because you've decided against using Harm to try and kill the dragon.

 

Again, if that's tactics, then, buying 10 tickets instead of 1 is a tactic when playing the lottery. Your move, lottery! Choose wisely!

 

 

You certainly can. But why would any gamer want to use it? If it covers the entire screen then it will kill its caster by design.

Nah. The entire game's encounter map isn't limited to just "the screen." You could be standing 5 pixels "off-screen" from the target's given screen area, and just hit everything in that given area. "the screen" just specifies a certain area size.

 

I beg to differ. No good player unleashes his valuable Death Spells without prepping the enemy first with a series of debuffs to insure that success is all but guaranteed. And With BG2, you can most definitely make it so that the enemy who isn't flat out immune to death magic, has no chance of successfully saving.

Okay, so you cast 4 prep spells, THEN you have a greater (though still lesser than other things) chance of successfully insta-deathing them. Why didn't you just cast 5 completely different spells, and they'd probably already be dead by now? And what's the point of a death spell's extreme degree of effect, in relation to non-death spells ("regular" damage spells) lesser degree of effect, if you're simply trading "overcome their total hitpoints" off for "overcome the odds of this spell not hitting them"?

 

In other words: Spell A does 40-50 damage (the opponent has... say... 300) and a pretty good chance to actually work. Spell B does kill-damage (in this case, 300 damage), but is horribly unlikely to work. One lacks damage, the other lacks probability. It's just a trade-off. And, Spell A still also has the chance to fail to do anything. So, how is that tactical?

 

Tactical is overcoming their defenses. Eliminating a circumstantial disadvantage, or taking advantage of circumstantial factors to boost the effectiveness of a given action/choice. It's not arbitrarily having the ability to instantly win, much less adjusting the odds of such an ability working. A death spell isn't a tool. It's a solution. All the other things are simply tools that you use, tactically, to arrive at a solution. The death spell can not-work, but so can anything else. The thing is, nothing else solves the problem just because it didn't fail to work.

 

You can't flank someone to hit them with the death spell where the had the least armor, or increase its effectiveness because of how you use it. It's effectiveness is absolute.

 

1)Score a quick KO so you can move on without having to rest, or use up your heals

2)Play the role of the master of disaster

3)Outsmart the developers

4) It's friggin FUN. <----- go ahead, counter that.

1) You can already do this with criticals and actual tactics that boost the finite, variable effectiveness of all your abilities, without an ability strictly designed to be absolute in function.

2) See #1, only add in all the ridiculously catastrophic spells and abilities you get that aren't insta-death spells. In Harry Potter, anyone who could hold a wand and shout "Avadakadavra!" could kill anyone else who didn't block the resulting green lightning. Would you rather see someone walk through a town and raze it to the ground with wind and rock and fire, or see someone waltz through shouting that and pointing at everyone they see, and hoping people don't block it? You can't magic-resist a hurricane.

3) You didn't really outsmart them, because they put it in the game. What, you clicked on "Finger of Death" in the "spells to learn" list when you leveled up? Good Heavens! HOW DID YOU DO THAT?! You genius, you.

4) So are cheatcodes. And, with wording changes, see #1... and 2.

 

 

Well, depends on the game. The Icewind dales would be fine without them. But BG2? BG2 would lose all its awesome. It would turn into a lesser game.... like the Icewind dales.

Well, that really objectively explains it. Guess I can't argue with an arbitrary claim. It wouldn't even lose just a little awesomeness, but all of it? Wow...

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Another straw man argument. tsk tsk Lephys. I never said "there's no doubt that it simply won't work". Always changing the context of what I say.

You're so caught up in irrelevant technicalities, semantics, and misconceptions/misinterpretations-turned-perceived-strawmen that you're completely blind to the simple fact you can EITHER:

 

A) Harm the dragon down to 1HP with a couple of successful dice rolls, then hit it for more-than-0 damage with just ONE more successful attack roll (this from a party of 6) and the dragon is dead. OR

B) Not do option A, and you actually have to fight the dragon for significantly longer than 2 turns.

 

Caught up in 'your' irrelevant technicalities, semantics, and misconceptions/misinterpretations. Of course, because if you're going to argue from something you make up along the way and try to present as fact when in fact it's complete fiction, then we'll call you out on it.

 

A) It doesn't take a couple of successful dice rolls. Again it's got nothing to do with RNG. And you actually have to fight the dragon for significantly longer than 2 turns. You have to prepare your party, you have to prepare your mage spells, you have to prepare your other party members. You have to coordinate the party members with your cleric. All this takes significantly longer than 2 turns.

B) And you actually have to fight the dragon for significantly longer than 2 turns which you do with Harm. All the above I mentioned does take significantly longer than 2 turns.

 

 

 

The EXTREME effect of the Harm spell's successful use upon the dragon is ridiculously encouraging, while the extreme unlikelihood that you'll pull it off without trying a whole bunch of times is incredibly DIScouraging. It's a lottery. Sure, you can buy more tickets, or fewer tickets, but it's a "kill this big bad thing easily" lottery, is what it is.

 

Also, for what it's worth, I have no need for you to believe anything, quite frankly. If it makes you feel better to pretend I'm lying and arguing a bunch of stuff you decided I was arguing, then turn around and accuse me of using strawmen every time that happens, be my guest. Doesn't hurt me any, so I sure hope it helps you sleep at night.

 

 

No  it's not. It's not ridiculously encouraging and it's not a lottery. But keep believing that story you've made up for yourself. As I said before, there are better builds with other classes that are better than the Cleric's Harm spell. Which is one of the reasons why I don't use Harm anymore. Because it's easier to kill a Dragon with other builds than a Cleric with Harm. So do you have a problem with these other builds that are more effective? Did the dev's get it wrong with those other builds because you can kill a dragon in less than a minute? Must be the RNG for those builds as well.

 

Also, I don't 'believe' in anything when it comes to Baldurs Gate 2. I go on Facts. Perhaps something you should try some day.

[Lephys]

Sure. I once played BG2 as a solo Monk. For the Shadow Dragon and Firkraag I had some reasonable tactics in mind. The Shadow Dragon fight was hard. Unlike the Shadow Dragon, Firkraag died instantly from a quivering palm. Pure luck (also pure fun after the @#$%% Shadow Dragon nearly killing my PC), very unlikely to succeed; the only reason for trying it at all is because it's always there for a Monk.

See, same thing, except it's not limited-use like a spell.

 

In Stun's play through, his stack of spells made his (otherwise crappy) Harm spell a sure thing. No luck involved and a clever use of available spells.

See, I missed that part where it was actually fact that you can make it a sure thing. That was the only reason I barely commented on the sure-thing part, and stuck to analyzing the base ability (which is chance-based, until you make it a sure thing). Also, for what it's worth, I understand this. That is a clever use of what you have at your disposal to take advantage of the rules. It hasn't been my intention to say that doing that, in the context of the game, doesn't require any work on the player's part. Setting up that situation. The point is... well... *points to next quote*

 

My disagreement was with your characterization of this tactic as being similar to a cheat code. His tactic was a skillful use of what was available. But, more on that in moment:

It's not the setup and usage of the spell to effect that's akin to a cheat code. It's the effect of the spell, itself. That's why I just kept using the base spell specs as an example, even though everyone keeps saying "yeah but what if this?". Sure, you can adjust its likelihood of working or not, via clever knowledge of/use of the system and rules. More power to ya. However, you can already do that with everything else; Boost weapon proficiency, so your attacks will more likely not-miss. It doesn't make them do infinite damage, it just makes them work. And, you can never do anything clever that makes that spell (Harm) have the effect it does. It can never work better or work worse. It can only work, or not-work. You can even cleverly prep a heavily armored foe, for example, so that some sword attack (if swords, say, weren't effective against heavy armor) ends up being ridiculously effective where it wouldn't have been without all the prepwork. But, it still doesn't have some all-powerful effect, like "you just die; I don't even care how many HP you have or how much damage I deal... I deal all of it... or all of it, -1".

 

In other words, if you take that spell out of the game, and you just use conventional means to damage the dragon to death, it relies on your actual tactical use of the tools at your disposal to effectively reduce the dragon down to 1 health (to match the effects of the Harm spell). Whereas, with the Harm spell in, and it selected as your battle strategy, all those efforts are put towards simply getting an ability to not NOT-work. A single ability. You're just adjusting passive numerical factors to get it to work. You're not making anything actually work to a better or worse degree. You're just making it work.

 

Perhaps it shouldn't be there, but if we were going to debate that, a reasonable argument for why it should is:

 

 a. It's really kind of a crappy spell by itself. That is, the probability of success is low enough that the expected value of the spell is lower than many other spell of its level - I've never bothered with it for that reason. So, Harm does no harm (to the game).

 

 b. There may be a skillful way to use this otherwise crappy spell - in fact, we've seen an example of how a cleric/mage can use it. So, Harm adds something interesting to the game.

a) Not really. That's the thing. It's always just as good as it ever is... in effect. That further reinforces my point, too, that it's binary in a world full of non-binary things. It's either useless (if you can't get it to work) or it's AMAZING!

 

b) There are plenty of ways in which to make a spell function in an interesting manner without having it essentially just perform a specific amount of damage. A spell that knocks someone back, and cleverly using it to position them, then knock them into some lava, or a spike wall (thus generating a relatively GOOD effect, compared to what it could do if you hadn't used it specifically and tactically in that manner) is a thousand times more interesting than a spell that always does enemy-health-minus-one damage to an enemy, but functions on the same defense/resistance system as any other spell in the game but just has extra low base chance of working.

 

In other words, I'd much rather cleverly using my abilities to produce interesting results, than to spend all my cleverness and effort just getting the ability to not-fail, and then produce the one, extremely useful result that it always produces as long as it doesn't fail.

[Yonjuro]

 

Sure. I once played BG2 as a solo Monk. For the Shadow Dragon and Firkraag I had some reasonable tactics in mind. The Shadow Dragon fight was hard. Unlike the Shadow Dragon, Firkraag died instantly from a quivering palm. Pure luck (also pure fun after the @#$%% Shadow Dragon nearly killing my PC), very unlikely to succeed; the only reason for trying it at all is because it's always there for a Monk.

See, same thing, except it's not limited-use like a spell.

 

 

  Sure, just so we're clear, that was the example of 'chance overriding challenge' in contrast to Stun's setup of Harm which was (player) skill overriding challenge.

 

 

See, I missed that part where it was actually fact that you can make it a sure thing. That was the only reason I barely commented on the sure-thing part, and stuck to analyzing the base ability (which is chance-based, until you make it a sure thing). Also, for what it's worth, I understand this. That is a clever use of what you have at your disposal to take advantage of the rules. 

 

   We agree on this point then. While we're here:

 

 

 

 

...

a) Not really. That's the thing. It's always just as good as it ever is... in effect. That further reinforces my point, too, that it's binary in a world full of non-binary things. It's either useless (if you can't get it to work) or it's AMAZING!

 

b) There are plenty of ways in which to make a spell function in an interesting manner without having it essentially just perform a specific amount of damage. A spell that knocks someone back, and cleverly using it to position them, then knock them into some lava, or a spike wall (thus generating a relatively GOOD effect, compared to what it could do if you hadn't used it specifically and tactically in that manner) is a thousand times more interesting than a spell that always does enemy-health-minus-one damage to an enemy, but functions on the same defense/resistance system as any other spell in the game but just has extra low base chance of working.

 

In other words, I'd much rather cleverly using my abilities to produce interesting results, than to spend all my cleverness and effort just getting the ability to not-fail, and then produce the one, extremely useful result that it always produces as long as it doesn't fail.

 

 

 I agree on point B. There are certainly non-binary spells (so to speak) that can have interesting combinations.

 

 Regarding point A, to a first approximation, Harm has no effect. Any creature for which it would make a difference will almost always make the save. It really isn't worth wasting slot on when you could have, e.g. Heal which will keep one of you characters from dying and will always succeed (unless the cast is interrupted, of course). On the other hand, it has interesting uses. 

 

 Having a healthy mix of lower damage more likely to succeed abilities and higher damage less likely to succeed abilities seems like a good mix to me. Certainly there there is room for discussion about the damage numbers and probabilities. I would not rule out 'binary' things as uninteresting without knowing the particulars.

[Stun]

 

Yeah, forgot to mention... in Throne of Bhaal, dragons like Saladrex and Draconis usually put Protection from Magic Weapons or Spell Immunity (necromancy) in their contingencies. Both of these spells make them immune to Harm.

Well, then a round of applause for the people who made deicisons in the Throne of Bhaal's design.

 

Really? You're Ok with that, despite the fact that all it takes is a single casing of either Breach or Pierce Magic (respectively) and *boom*, these Throne of Bhaal Dragons are right back to being vulnerable to Harm...?

 

 

If by "here" you mean "this new, Throne of Bhaal scenario that I, Stun, know for a fact that you, Lephys, weren't even referring to," then no. Now, if you meant the scenario in which you can kill a huge dragon in 2 turns, then yes. I'm not sure why my mind would've suddenly changed, so the "still think the same thing?" question is admittedly a bit puzzling.

Wait...2 turns? I would never be happy with killing a dragon in 2 turns. That's 20 rounds. I was doing better than that halfway into my 1st playthough. But to address your non-point, The devs didn't change a single thing in the system with TOB. Instead, they simply changed the AI of specific bosses. This was a point I brought up earlier as a *solution* to Josh Sawyer's gripe about players killing tough bosses in one round, and you dismissed it. Hypocrite.

 

I didn't know "I'll allocate all my points throughout the game so that I have the highest percentage chance of landing a Harm spell!" was a tactic.

It's not. BG2 does not use a point system for spells. In BG2, you use Spells to increase your chances of landing other spells. Or, if we're discussing battle tactics, You employ a spell-filled battle plan early in a battle, to insure the success of the spells you use later in battle.

 

 

Nah. The entire game's encounter map isn't limited to just "the screen." You could be standing 5 pixels "off-screen" from the target's given screen area, and just hit everything in that given area. "the screen" just specifies a certain area size.

In that case, I don't see why not. After all, a screen-sized Fireball that does 6000 damage will do No damage to those who are immune to fire. Or those who buff themselves with Fire resistance. Or creatures with high Magic Resistance, or Rogues who have Improved evasion. Or Mages with Spell turning, or Mages with Minor Globe of invulnerability or Globe of invulnerability, or spell trap Or Spell Immunity(evocation), Or anyone who's using a Rod of Absorption, or anyone wearing the Cloak of Mirroring.

 

In short, BG2's system already has things covered. Or as I said before, there are ways around EVERYTHING.

 

Okay, so you cast 4 prep spells, THEN you have a greater (though still lesser than other things) chance of successfully insta-deathing them. Why didn't you just cast 5 completely different spells,

Because BG2 allows your mage to cast 3 or more of those debuff spells at once (spell trigger; spell sequencer; Contingency; Chain contingency... not to mention your Project Image and your Project image's simulacrum, which can do the same!), in the meantime, your cleric is free to toss those death spells, or more debuffs, or other spells, while your rogue and your warriors can whittle down the enemy so that even if he does manage to save against the Finger of Death, the damage he takes from it might still kill him.

 

Welcome to tactics 101.

 

But buddy, The inclusion of Death spells in a game does not mean that you no longer have to think. If you assess the situation and reach a conclusion that employing a death spell is unviable in a given encounter, then you.... don't cast it. You employ a different set of tactics instead. Death spells certainly aren't a universal tool.

 

 

You can't flank someone to hit them with the death spell where the had the least armor, or increase its effectiveness because of how you use it. It's effectiveness is absolute.

I should hope not! There's nothing more DULL than a magic system that works just like a sword swing. Magic should operate with a completely different set of rules.

 

1) You can already do this with criticals and actual tactics that boost the finite, variable effectiveness of all your abilities, without an ability strictly designed to be absolute in function.

Great. And? is there some rule in Lephys-land that says you cannot achieve the same result 2 different ways? And what's this "absolute" crap? Have we been unable to penetrate your head with the FACT that there are ways to mitigate EVERYTHING in Bg2?

 

2) See #1, only add in all the ridiculously catastrophic spells and abilities you get that aren't insta-death spells.

That doesn't help your argument. The inclusion of death spells in a system simply means that the player is given more tools to choose from. More ways to role play. More ways to destroy his enemies. Edited January 28, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

 

Sure. I once played BG2 as a solo Monk. For the Shadow Dragon and Firkraag I had some reasonable tactics in mind. The Shadow Dragon fight was hard. Unlike the Shadow Dragon, Firkraag died instantly from a quivering palm. Pure luck (also pure fun after the @#$%% Shadow Dragon nearly killing my PC), very unlikely to succeed; the only reason for trying it at all is because it's always there for a Monk.

See, same thing, except it's not limited-use like a spell.

 

Except that it is, Lephys. Quivering Palm can only be used once per day. And that makes it even MORE limited than the spells a Mage or Cleric gets, which can be memorized many times. Also, you cannot be a Monk-Mage, so the Timestop tactic is closed off for quivering palm. However, Monks can stun opponents. And attacks against stunned opponents are also automatic hits. So Quivering palm could be used in that scenario. Too bad it's subject to a saving throw.

 

Oh, and Unlike Harm, Quivering Palm will KILL its target if it succeeds.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Stun

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

How did we get from Objective XP to the Harm spell?

 

Anyways, 3.5e's Harm is much better balanced than 2e's version, Objective XP will work fine unless implemented by idiots, and save or die spells are not compatible with PE's mechanics.

[FlintlockJazz]

How did we get from Objective XP to the Harm spell?

 

I was wondering the same thing.

 

I suppose it shows that if you can still get the same xp for killing a dragon in two turns using clever use of spells as you would for actually battling it for 15 minutes or however long it takes most people then why shouldn't you also get the xp for cleverly overcoming the dragon without resorting to combat at all, proving that objective XP is the best for this situation!   Whether you spend hours battling something, come up with an ingenious combination of spells, or work out a method of neutralising it without direct conflict then you have still won!

[ZornWO]

Well, in honor of the Dark Lord Insomnia, I've read the whole thread, apart from some spots I skimmed.  On the XP discussion, I'm very much on the fence.  It seems high-risk, high-reward since it might make RPing more at home in the game than even the IE games.  I'll just add:

 

The problem is that there's no difference between directly getting XP for your kills, and directly getting XP for kills because "killing things was the objective". It's literally the same thing.

You know, I actually think this is wrong for reasons different than other people have argued.  Let's say you kill two different groups of three wights (or whatever).  One of the groups was on terrain that played to their abilities, and the other group was on terrain that hindered them.  It make sense to reward the accomplishments of killing each group differently.

It'd be easy for this type of thing to have poor balance, so Hiro's point well upthread that this XP system seems to require more dev time and attention seems a fair one.  Ultimately I doubt it'll make or break the game.

[teknoman2]

in BG2 the first time i played, i fought the shadow dragon in umar hills. the first spell i used against him was a chromatic orb and the 1 in a milion chance came along that it bypassed his resistance and he failed the save, thus getting petrified. in later plays, i used lower resistance and malison and buffs, but i never got any hit or miss spell to work on him

[Sir Chaox]

 

 

Well, in honor of the Dark Lord Insomnia, I've read the whole thread, apart from some spots I skimmed.  On the XP discussion, I'm very much on the fence.  It seems high-risk, high-reward since it might make RPing more at home in the game than even the IE games.  I'll just add:
 

 

The problem is that there's no difference between directly getting XP for your kills, and directly getting XP for kills because "killing things was the objective". It's literally the same thing.

You know, I actually think this is wrong for reasons different than other people have argued.  Let's say you kill two different groups of three wights (or whatever).  One of the groups was on terrain that played to their abilities, and the other group was on terrain that hindered them.  It make sense to reward the accomplishments of killing each group differently.

It'd be easy for this type of thing to have poor balance, so Hiro's point well upthread that this XP system seems to require more dev time and attention seems a fair one.  Ultimately I doubt it'll make or break the game.

 

 

First of all, congrats on getting through all of this madness.

 

Now, towards your example.

 

The quote you took out was not referring to a scenario similar to the one you created, but I will indulge you anyway. The quote (outside of any context) is simply stating that there is no difference between getting XP for each individual kill as we play versus getting XP in a chunk for completing an objective that may have involved killing some things. This is debatable, of course, but I am just clarifying what was meant.

 

Question: did the player create the terrain that hindered the wights or did they just happen to be in a location that hinders them, making the fight inherently easier based on location.

 

If based on player skill: XP should be equal, but I don't think you were referring to this.

 

If based on natural environment: I'm not even sure if they will have a system that hinders particular monsters based on location, but if they did do this, then it should probably just be based on overall difficulty of the encounter, much like higher level wights would give more XP to kill then lower.

 

And to further clarify, you would only get XP if it meets the requirements to be considered an accomplishment; unfortunately, we do not have enough details yet to know what these requirements might be.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Sir Chaox

[teknoman2]

i have a question... has anyone here ever played bloodlines? it did not have xp for killing things except "bosses" or for any other thing you did for that matter, except for completing quests...i dont see it being scorned for "not being RPG enough because in an RPG you need to get xp every time your character does something no matter what it is"

if the game is designed around an objective based xp system, then the entire gameplay will reflect this decision.

[Sir Chaox]

i have a question... has anyone here ever played bloodlines? it did not have xp for killing things except "bosses" or for any other thing you did for that matter, except for completing quests...i dont see it being scorned for "not being RPG enough because in an RPG you need to get xp every time your character does something no matter what it is"

if the game is designed around an objective based xp system, then the entire gameplay will reflect this decision.

 

I sort of remember a system like that in Bloodlines, but most of the people who are critical of the objective system (not myself) are concerned because the IE games offered a certain level of flexibility as they were not designed around needing to accomplish something significant to gain any experience; this especially can be an issue in wilderness areas where you may stumble upon minor encounters that don't have the depth or length of an actual quest but should still be rewarding to the player (assuming PE contains such encounters... which it should!). BG1 was full of such encounters.

[teknoman2]

 

i have a question... has anyone here ever played bloodlines? it did not have xp for killing things except "bosses" or for any other thing you did for that matter, except for completing quests...i dont see it being scorned for "not being RPG enough because in an RPG you need to get xp every time your character does something no matter what it is"

if the game is designed around an objective based xp system, then the entire gameplay will reflect this decision.

 

I sort of remember a system like that in Bloodlines, but most of the people who are critical of the objective system (not myself) are concerned because the IE games offered a certain level of flexibility as they were not designed around needing to accomplish something significant to gain any experience; this especially can be an issue in wilderness areas where you may stumble upon minor encounters that don't have the depth or length of an actual quest but should still be rewarding to the player (assuming PE contains such encounters... which it should!). BG1 was full of such encounters.

 

but that is the point right there. if you meet something somewhere, it means the devs put it there for a reason. you will meet the random trash mob while you go around, but instead of getting your xp by the random mobs you kill as you explore, you will get your xp by getting to important places. now if you think that wasting time to sneak around a goblin is a must, since killing the goblin (with a single attack) is pointless because you get no xp, it's another issue

[ZornWO]

First of all, congrats on getting through all of this madness.

 

Now, towards your example.

 

The quote you took out was not referring to a scenario similar to the one you created, but I will indulge you anyway. The quote (outside of any context) is simply stating that there is no difference between getting XP for each individual kill as we play versus getting XP in a chunk for completing an objective that may have involved killing some things. This is debatable, of course, but I am just clarifying what was meant.

 

Question: did the player create the terrain that hindered the wights or did they just happen to be in a location that hinders them, making the fight inherently easier based on location.

 

If based on player skill: XP should be equal, but I don't think you were referring to this.

 

If based on natural environment: I'm not even sure if they will have a system that hinders particular monsters based on location, but if they did do this, then it should probably just be based on overall difficulty of the encounter, much like higher level wights would give more XP to kill then lower.

 

And to further clarify, you would only get XP if it meets the requirements to be considered an accomplishment; unfortunately, we do not have enough details yet to know what these requirements might be.

 

 

Yes, sorry if the post needs clarifying for people who didn't read the thread through. 

 

Stun's point in the sentence is just what you were able to discern.  The sentence simply means what it says (like all great, simple points, it's robust to context).  It generated a fair amount of disagreement.  It's a reasonable view for him to take, but I think the two systems (XP-for-kills, and XP for "accomplishing" the end of a battle) are not wholly equivalent for reasons no one really mentioned, so I spoke up.  A similar example would be killing a pair of different creatures whose abilities complement each other.  It would be more difficult to kill the pair together than to kill them separately, a fact that the XP-for-each-kill system that Stun was advocating wouldn't reflect, but an accomplishment-XP system could reflect, if done well.  My basic point is/was just that combat difficulty isn't necessarily an additive function of the enemy creatures' individual difficulties.

 

Not that that's a great argument for or against either XP system.  If nothing else, an XP-for-kills system reduces the chance for the devs to misjudge the difficulty of a battle and reduces the time devs must spend on the matter.  Plus there are hosts of other arguments on the thread as well.  The XP systems each have pros and cons.  Again, I'm on the fence.

[Yonjuro]

 

 A similar example would be killing a pair of different creatures whose abilities complement each other.  It would be more difficult to kill the pair together than to kill them separately, a fact that the XP-for-each-kill system that Stun was advocating wouldn't reflect, but an accomplishment-XP system could reflect, if done well.  My basic point is/was just that combat difficulty isn't necessarily an additive function of the enemy creatures' individual difficulties.

 

 

   That's an interesting example. I think that separating them is what an intelligent character would try to do. So, according to me (and opinions may differ), in this case, kill XP and accomplishment/objective XP should work the same way.

 

 What are the examples where they should be different (possibly including the original example for those that disagree with me)?

[ZornWO]

 

That's an interesting example. I think that separating them is what an intelligent character would try to do. So, according to me (and opinions may differ), in this case, kill XP and accomplishment/objective XP should work the same way.

 

 What are the examples where they should be different (possibly including the original example for those that disagree with me)?

 

 

 

I wasn't clear.  Gah, you're dragging a specific example out from me, which I was hoping to avoid because that tends to get bogged in tangents, a la the Harm example (and further, specifics are more speculative than discussing the general features of the systems so there's that drawback as well). 

 

But there I meant to have them be two separate encounters rather than separating enemies from one encounter.  So, let's say you encounter a crypt full of Skeleton Warriors, and then just after beating them, you encounter a lich.  Having those encounters be sequential would, generally, be easier to defeat than an encounter where the lich and SWs attack together, forming a team (as the SWs' magic resistance and melee would complement the lich's powers).  That's not a perfect example since their abilities complement each other only in a relatively minor way (as well, there's the issue of if you rely on AoE attacks).  But even when I solo sorc and have a house rule against rest spamming, I'd generally rather encounter a sole lich and then later some melee undead than the two together.  A kill-XP system would reward the different encounter patterns (two separate encounters vs. one big one) the same way; a hand-crafted accomplishment one wouldn't necessarily.

 

The terrain example would be another: if an enemy has high speed and an ability to break engagement at will unless surrounded, it would probably be harder to defeat if you encounter it in an open plain or a forest than if you find it in the end corner of a cave or such.

 

Regardless of the specifics though, the general point is just that the two XP systems are not wholly equivalent simply b/c combat difficulty is not always a simple additive result of the enemies' individual difficulties (though I meant it when I said it's reasonable to say the XP systems are much the same - as a first approximation, "individual-kill XP = XP for combat" is a fair guesstimate).

[Yonjuro]

 

 

That's an interesting example. I think that separating them is what an intelligent character would try to do. So, according to me (and opinions may differ), in this case, kill XP and accomplishment/objective XP should work the same way.

 

 What are the examples where they should be different (possibly including the original example for those that disagree with me)?

 

 

 

I wasn't clear.  Gah, you're dragging a specific example out from me, which I was hoping to avoid because that tends to get bogged in tangents, a la the Harm example (and further, specifics are more speculative than discussing the general features of the systems so there's that drawback as well). 

 

 

 

 Oh, I see. So the point is that if there were, say, three encounters: one with a lich, one with 5 skeletons and one with both a lich and 5 skeletons, the encounter with both should be worth more than the sum of the other two. Sure, that makes sense. 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

My disagreement was with your characterization of this tactic as being similar to a cheat code. His tactic was a skillful use of what was available. But, more on that in moment:

It's not the setup and usage of the spell to effect that's akin to a cheat code. It's the effect of the spell, itself. That's why I just kept using the base spell specs as an example, even though everyone keeps saying "yeah but what if this?". Sure, you can adjust its likelihood of working or not, via clever knowledge of/use of the system and rules. More power to ya. However, you can already do that with everything else; Boost weapon proficiency, so your attacks will more likely not-miss. It doesn't make them do infinite damage, it just makes them work. And, you can never do anything clever that makes that spell (Harm) have the effect it does. It can never work better or work worse. It can only work, or not-work. You can even cleverly prep a heavily armored foe, for example, so that some sword attack (if swords, say, weren't effective against heavy armor) ends up being ridiculously effective where it wouldn't have been without all the prepwork. But, it still doesn't have some all-powerful effect, like "you just die; I don't even care how many HP you have or how much damage I deal... I deal all of it... or all of it, -1".

 

In other words, if you take that spell out of the game, and you just use conventional means to damage the dragon to death, it relies on your actual tactical use of the tools at your disposal to effectively reduce the dragon down to 1 health (to match the effects of the Harm spell). Whereas, with the Harm spell in, and it selected as your battle strategy, all those efforts are put towards simply getting an ability to not NOT-work. A single ability. You're just adjusting passive numerical factors to get it to work. You're not making anything actually work to a better or worse degree. You're just making it work.

 

I'm going to have to intrude on you here. Harm (in vanilla BG) requires several things to succeed, and only one to fail. It must be successfully memorized and cast. One makes it finite, the other leaves you vulnerable and subject to wasting the effort should casting be disrupted. If your cleric doesn't use it within 2 rounds (12 seconds), the spell is wasted. The cleric gets no bonus attacks and low THAC0, making the necessity of a touch attack less than likely. If the cleric misses (most likely), the spell is wasted. If all of those conditions succeed, it works. I think even Magic Resistance can derail it, though I am unsure. I use Spell Revisions mod.

 

The point is, it's finite, expendable, disruptable, and difficult to execute. You will likely need to devote considerable other resources to make it successfully occur. Using several spells to debuff the foe, buff your character, quality gear, and enhancing potions to carry it out is not trivial. Nor is it any different from your sword example--or even using Breach/Spell Thrust/Lower Resistence/etc. to cause you greater success of landing a spell. Armor Class causes melee attacks to completely fail, yet I doubt you hold the same reservations of lowering a foe's defense to make melee attacks "work" as banal. You're aguing semantics or taste.

[Stun]

Plus, if one's problem with Harm is that its an "all or nothing" spell, and that such spells "suck", then fine. That's Personal taste. A gamer is not required to love every type of spell/spell effect in a game. (personally, I dislike summons in a party based RPG. The concept itself seems redundant. You already have a party. Why do you seek help from conjured monsters?) But you don't see me spending 10 pages condemning the concept of Summoning spells, do you? Nope. On the contrary. I'll condemn an RPG if it doesn't have summoning spells. And Death spells. And contingency spells. And overpowered AOEs. A good system must have all of these concepts, otherwise it loses the "good" label. Why? Playstyles. The more playstyles the system caters to, the better the game is going to be. Period.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Stun

[teknoman2]

 

My disagreement was with your characterization of this tactic as being similar to a cheat code. His tactic was a skillful use of what was available. But, more on that in moment:

It's not the setup and usage of the spell to effect that's akin to a cheat code. It's the effect of the spell, itself. That's why I just kept using the base spell specs as an example, even though everyone keeps saying "yeah but what if this?". Sure, you can adjust its likelihood of working or not, via clever knowledge of/use of the system and rules. More power to ya. However, you can already do that with everything else; Boost weapon proficiency, so your attacks will more likely not-miss. It doesn't make them do infinite damage, it just makes them work. And, you can never do anything clever that makes that spell (Harm) have the effect it does. It can never work better or work worse. It can only work, or not-work. You can even cleverly prep a heavily armored foe, for example, so that some sword attack (if swords, say, weren't effective against heavy armor) ends up being ridiculously effective where it wouldn't have been without all the prepwork. But, it still doesn't have some all-powerful effect, like "you just die; I don't even care how many HP you have or how much damage I deal... I deal all of it... or all of it, -1".

 

In other words, if you take that spell out of the game, and you just use conventional means to damage the dragon to death, it relies on your actual tactical use of the tools at your disposal to effectively reduce the dragon down to 1 health (to match the effects of the Harm spell). Whereas, with the Harm spell in, and it selected as your battle strategy, all those efforts are put towards simply getting an ability to not NOT-work. A single ability. You're just adjusting passive numerical factors to get it to work. You're not making anything actually work to a better or worse degree. You're just making it work.

 

I'm going to have to intrude on you here. Harm (in vanilla BG) requires several things to succeed, and only one to fail. It must be successfully memorized and cast. One makes it finite, the other leaves you vulnerable and subject to wasting the effort should casting be disrupted. If your cleric doesn't use it within 2 rounds (12 seconds), the spell is wasted. The cleric gets no bonus attacks and low THAC0, making the necessity of a touch attack less than likely. If the cleric misses (most likely), the spell is wasted. If all of those conditions succeed, it works. I think even Magic Resistance can derail it, though I am unsure. I use Spell Revisions mod.

 

The point is, it's finite, expendable, disruptable, and difficult to execute. You will likely need to devote considerable other resources to make it successfully occur. Using several spells to debuff the foe, buff your character, quality gear, and enhancing potions to carry it out is not trivial. Nor is it any different from your sword example--or even using Breach/Spell Thrust/Lower Resistence/etc. to cause you greater success of landing a spell. Armor Class causes melee attacks to completely fail, yet I doubt you hold the same reservations of lowering a foe's defense to make melee attacks "work" as banal. You're aguing semantics or taste.

 

however, even if you do all the things you can possibly do to maximize the chance of success, it still goes down to a dice roll. and that dice roll is a hit or miss, making the entire preparation a waste of time and leaving you with limited resources to use for the rest of the fight in case of a miss

[Stun]

however, even if you do all the things you can possibly do to maximize the chance of success, it still goes down to a dice roll. and that dice roll is a hit or miss, making the entire preparation a waste of time and leaving you with limited resources to use for the rest of the fight in case of a miss

But that's the system across the board. It's not any different than a Warrior with a sword. A warrior can chug down all the 'bonus-to-hit' potions he has, then coat his weapon with 10 different kinds of poisons, only to then roll a 1.... miss his opponent, and all his prep is wasted. Edited January 29, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Let me just ask this, of anyone in favor of these "extreme" abilities:

 

If you were designing an RPG like this (like the IE ones and PoE), where would you draw the line on the extent of ability effects, and why would you draw the line there?

Edited January 31, 2014 by Lephys