Update #74: The Mob Rulers: Wizards and Druids and our Partnership with Paradox

[Quetzalcoatl]

This game is going to be a pretty low-level campaign with only 6 spell levels, right? So I don't think we'll get in the realm of save-or-die spells...yet.

 

Of course, there is an additional concern with save-or-die spells in this game: the lack of resurrection.

[Ffordesoon]

Of course whether the actual saving throw succeeds is decided by dice roll

Taking the rest of your post into consideration, doesn't all that planning make the fact that it's decided by die roll worse? If I'd formulated a plan of action like that, I'd want it to pay off in some capacity. Maybe not in instant death, but at least in a lot of damage. The problem Josh is talking about is the fact that it's both all-or-nothing and random. You might disagree that it's a problem, but a lot of players would disagree with you, myself included.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Ffordesoon

[Stun]

 

Of course whether the actual saving throw succeeds is decided by dice roll

Taking the rest of your post into consideration, doesn't all that planning make the fact that it's decided by die roll worse? If I'd formulated a plan of action like that, I'd want it to pay off in some capacity. Maybe not in instant death, but at least in a lot of damage. The problem Josh is talking about is the fact that it's both all-or-nothing and random. You might disagree that it's a problem, but a lot of players would disagree with you, myself included.

 

Josh knows full well that it was never truly all or nothing in the IE games, and even dice roll results weren't 100% random.

 

Spells like Slay living and Finger of Death still did damage if the target made his save. And saving throws themselves can be lowered via decent planning/buffing, or raised by debuffs. And btw, the BG games had No-auto-fail-on-1, which meant that there was no way a Disintegrate or Wail of the Banshee could kill you if buffed your save vs. death to 1 or better.

 

Then there's the "obnoxious" hard counters. A misnomer, since even death Wards can be dispelled and magic resistance can be lowered by an intelligent enemy who's looking to make sure his finger of death doesn't go to waste.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

All death spells require influence/effort on the part of the player. They're not Level 1 spells that are given to you at character creation, after all. They must be earned.

They're a chance roll, and an absolute effect (there's nothing more to be done to a target once the spell succeeds, even if it's the first thing you've done to that target). Obviously they aren't if you don't cast them.

 

Where does your line of reasoning stop? "Obviously, they require effort on the part of the developer. If not for them, then you couldn't even control a character who could cast them in the first place."

 

I'm talking about using them. Fun or no fun, they are objectively binary. We've been over this. All that complex, "tactical" effort to get the death spell to work is just a substitute for any other combat effort required to kill something. If you spend 45 seconds getting the threshold of success for the spell boosted in your favor, then cast it and kill the thing, you could've just damaged it that whole time, until this last damaging hit killed it. So, I don't see how that's functionally any different from any other type of fun.

 

What if, instead of a bunch of prepwork, then a death spell, you simply could stack armor debuffs on the foe, until it had -500 armor, and your 20-damage attack now did 520 damage, which was more than its HP, and it died in one blow? Don't worry. That'd be a super intelligent and awesome design, because it still required effort, and was just so much more fun than actually having to put forth effort in a normal fashion to damage the thing to death. /sarcasm

 

Straw man. (why the hell do I waste my time with you?)

 

Edit: and you're blind. I said THIS in my last post:

Personally, I'd like a little of both in my games.

^imagine that

 

Nope, just a question. Croikey, man. Learn what things are. How can I insist that a false argument is your argument by asking you if that's what your argument is?

 

And, you know what? I like a little of both in my games, too. That doesn't mean just anywhere'll do. "Sometimes, I just want an enemy to suffer a fatal heart attack upon entering a battle, because it was a very old creature with bad health, randomly." No, I don't want that. I want a little chance to work with what I'm actively doing. That's the difference.

 

So no, I'm not blind. If I was, then the sheer number of words I type would be pretty amazing, don'tcha think?

 

 

Can you show me in that quote of mine where I accuse Josh of hating luck?

It's in the part where say his argument is that 0% luck and 100% non-luck is good, and that effects due to luck should never happen. Unless, of course, you're suggesting he puts 0 value in luck, but also likes it a lot. "Oh, he doesn't hate it. He just thinks it should be buried somewhere and never see the light of day, is all." /sarcasmquote (not an actual quoting of you, for the record, since I apparently have to specify that).

 

Also, note the lack of quotation marks on the part about you saying Josh hates luck. The argument here isn't that you literally typed the word "hate". I'm simply pointing out an idea. Sheesh. Dislikes, doesn't like, thinks it sucks... take your pick of synonymous words, if you think "hate" is slightly inaccurate. The idea is the same. If you can't comprehend that someone could potentially use the word "hates" to simply suggest "the opposite of likes," then I feel for you.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Lephys

[rjshae]

Given what I've seen of the combat mechanics development thus far, its not even clear to me that we will get "sudden death" spells in this game. That's a peculiarity of the D&D system I don't often see in other rules sets. Instead, I'm speculating we may see spells that apply and maintain continuous damage, or effects, over time. Like a petrification spell that, say, incrementally lowers your Dexterity

and hardens your flesh until you can no longer move--at which point you are effectively made of stone. A Disintegration spell may simply chip away at your flesh, again lowering your physical stats until you hit zero. Just guessing, of course.

[Stun]

 

All death spells require influence/effort on the part of the player. They're not Level 1 spells that are given to you at character creation, after all. They must be earned.

They're a chance roll

 

A chance roll that can be heavily influenced and even eliminated by tactics, buffs, items, class and race abilities on the part of the target, as well as heavily influenced and almost guaranteed by tactics, debuffs, items, and class abilities on the part of the attacker.

 

 

and an absolute effect

Death tends to be an absolute effect, yes. Some games "cure" this by eliminating death. Do you like games where you don't have to worry about dying?

 

 

 

"Obviously, they require effort on the part of the developer. If not for them, then you couldn't even control a character who could cast them in the first place."

Hey, I understand this mindset. It's common among modern gamers, since they're used to modern games where leveling is so common/frequent that it no longer signifies an accomplishment. But we weren't talking about those games.

 

 

I'm talking about using them. Fun or no fun, they are objectively binary.

They're an additional element of gameplay. They add to what we already have (all the stuff you mention)

 

 

 

 

 

Can you show me in that quote of mine where I accuse Josh of hating luck?

 

It's in the part where say his argument is that 0% luck and 100% non-luck is good,

 

Wait, so let me see if I got this right. Saying that something is 100% good and preferred means you Hate all alternatives? LOL

 

I'll ask again: Have you lost your mind?

Edited March 27, 2014 by Stun

[Elerond]

PoE is full of chance rolls, as every hit and resistance roll are chance rolls, but they try minimize binary rolls, where there is only possibility of success or failure, especially when it comes to kill or not to kill character.

 

So luck play large part in PoE, but it effects is more widely scaled than typical hit or miss.

[Lephys]

Death tends to be an absolute effect, yes. Some games "cure" this by eliminating death. Do you like games where you don't have to worry about dying?

You don't seem to comprehend the difference between its being the effect of a spell (what the spell does, and not what it indirectly happens to cause) and it simply being "an effect." Why can't you just once stop leaping bridges and actually inspect what's between one end and the other? Citing a qualm with absolute death as the inherent effect of a spell in no way leaves "obviously death, itself, is a problem" as the only remaining option as a point to adhere to.

 

Hey, I understand this mindset. It's common among modern gamers, since they're used to modern games where leveling is so common/frequent that it no longer signifies an accomplishment. But we weren't talking about those games.

I have absolutely no idea why you just said that, or what it even has to do with anything at all. The quote was depicting your mindset, which you are now mocking? o_o

 

 

They're an additional element of gameplay. They add to what we already have (all the stuff you mention)

Nope. They're just doing the same thing that other stuff already does, but in a shortcutted form. You can already kill things in one hit, under the right circumstances, with plenty of abilities.

 

What's the point in saying "your challenge here, in combat, is to work with the limited tools that you've got in order to kill your opponents," then just give you a tool marked "Death"? Not much of a point. It's no different from the Dialogue skills. "Oh, you have really awesome Speech? Then you magically just win dialogues." Would you argue that that's better than still actually having to say the right thing in the right situation, regardless of how many options are opened up by stat/various checks in dialogue?

 

 

Wait, so let me see if I got this right. Saying that something is 100% good and preferred means you Hate all alternatives? LOL

Nope. Saying that something's specifically cited alternative is 0% good means you hate that specifically cited alternative. Has nothing to do with liking anything else at all. You could hate everything, really. It's possible. At least you find your arbitrary strawfolk amusing, though. You seem to "LOL" every time they're around.

[Stun]

 

Death tends to be an absolute effect, yes. Some games "cure" this by eliminating death. Do you like games where you don't have to worry about dying?

You don't seem to comprehend the difference between its being the effect of a spell (what the spell does, and not what it indirectly happens to cause) and it simply being "an effect." Why can't you just once stop leaping bridges and actually inspect what's between one end and the other? Citing a qualm with absolute death as the inherent effect of a spell in no way leaves "obviously death, itself, is a problem" as the only remaining option as a point to adhere to.

 

Well, Lephys, I could cite you a list of Death spells where Death isn't the absolute effect (finite damage is another effect they may cause). Oh wait, I already DID cite you that list... about 37 times in the last year or so that we've been debating this subject.

 

Willful denial is also an absolute effect. And you failed your save.

 

 

Hey, I understand this mindset. It's common among modern gamers, since they're used to modern games where leveling is so common/frequent that it no longer signifies an accomplishment. But we weren't talking about those games.

I have absolutely no idea why you just said that, or what it even has to do with anything at all.

 

Then I'll spell it out. You claimed Death spells require no Effort. So I cited the fact that they do require effort. a ton of it. They're higher level spells that must be earned through long hours of playtime and leveling. And then you responded with: "That's not the effort I'm talking about! That's like citing game development as effort."

 

So I decided to remind you that a rare high level skill/ability/spell acquired through Leveling... in games where leveling is a big deal... IS real effort. More so than simply buffing up your accuracy score so that you can hit things and do more damage.

 

 

 

They're an additional element of gameplay. They add to what we already have (all the stuff you mention)

Nope. They're just doing the same thing that other stuff already does, but in a shortcutted form. You can already kill things in one hit, under the right circumstances, with plenty of abilities.

 

What can be more "shortcutted" than one-shotting someone? Hell, one-shotting someone doesn't even allow for a saving throw.

 

Nah. They're an extra element of gameplay, complete with their own set of resistances, modifiers and de-modifiers.

 

What's the point in saying "your challenge here, in combat, is to work with the limited tools that you've got in order to kill your opponents," then just give you a tool marked "Death"?

Because the "tools" we're talking about also include ways to defend against death spells as well as ways to strengthen those death spells. Like I said it's an extra element of gameplay. It does not exist in a vacuum. And in no game they're in do they even reach the point where they're the most powerful tool in the arsenal.

 

 

 

 

Wait, so let me see if I got this right. Saying that something is 100% good and preferred means you Hate all alternatives? LOL

Nope. Saying that something's specifically cited alternative is 0% good means you hate that specifically cited alternative.

 

What!? That's complete nonsense.

 

If I were to outline my thoughts about combat systems in cRPGS, I'd say that Real time with pause is 100% good/preferred while turn based is 0% good/preferred. But I certainly don't hate turn based. I just don't prefer it. At all. Especially when the alternative is RTwP.

 

You sir, have lost your mind.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

What can be more "shortcutted" than one-shotting someone? Hell, one-shotting someone doesn't even allow for a saving throw.

Sure it does. I believe it's called a miss.

 

What!? That's complete nonsense.

 

If I were to outline my thoughts about combat systems in cRPGS, I'd say that Real time with pause is 100% good/preferred while turn based is 0% good/preferred. But I certainly don't hate turn based. I just don't prefer it. At all. Especially when the alternative is RTwP.

The only thing that's nonsense is your need to toss in "preferred" into the mix, then argue against what I said having nothing to do with preferring anything at all, but rather, judging it as objectively good or not-good.

 

Let me know when you feel like taking up the practice of actually staying on the same page as someone else for five whole seconds, and I'll gladly do this dance with you (or hopefully an actually productive one) again. Cheers.

[Stun]

 

What can be more "shortcutted" than one-shotting someone? Hell, one-shotting someone doesn't even allow for a saving throw.

 Sure it does. I believe it's called a miss.

 

Oh, well, Finger of death can be saved against. Its casting can also be interrupted.

 

 

 

The only thing that's nonsense is your need to toss in "preferred" into the mix, then argue against what I said having nothing to do with preferring anything at all, but rather, judging it as objectively good or not-good.

Fine, I won't use "preferred" at all.

 

Real time with pause = 100% good. Turn based 0% good.

 

That does not mean I hate turn based. I will play a turn based game, and tolerate it. But I don't hate it. I'll tell you what I hate. First person shooters. I will never play another one ever again. Why? because I hate them.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Stun

[playdude92]

Games have shaped me. I already have my stereotypical view set, that wizard´s are weird eccentrics or powerhungry conjurers and that Druids are Hippies.

 

It get´s interesting, when you try to play such a specific personality. Because you´ll inevitably end up playing as your view of someone else.

 

Most fun is always discovering a personality as you play.

[Ineth]

What's the point in saying "your challenge here, in combat, is to work with the limited tools that you've got in order to kill your opponents," then just give you a tool marked "Death"?

Because the "tools" we're talking about also include ways to defend against death spells as well as ways to strengthen those death spells. Like I said it's an extra element of gameplay. It does not exist in a vacuum.

 

They're a chance roll

A chance roll that can be heavily influenced and even eliminated by tactics, buffs, items, class and race abilities on the part of the target, as well as heavily influenced and almost guaranteed by tactics, debuffs, items, and class abilities on the part of the attacker.

 

Exactly. (Although the "eliminated/guaranteed" mostly applies to the unmodded game; with tactical mods such as SCS, smart enemies will do their best to counteract those efforts.)

 

Despite what Lephys insinuates, death spells are not a cheat code that insta-kills enemies with no effort. You need to put effort into using them tactically wisely (as I explained in this post), and, as I forgot to elaborate in that post, you also need to put effort into influencing the probability of success of those spells when you're dealing with even moderately powerful enemies (like mages, or bosses in general).

 

They're really not so fundamentally different from other Infinity Engine combat mechanics that way. For example, take:

 

Melee Attacks

 

A well-equipped, optimized, mid-to-highlevel warrior build, can kill many types of enemies faster than a mage could kill them with Finger of Death, provided that they roll good to-hit rolls. (And yes, even in the very first round of combat, especially with backstabbing.)

 

Of course the dice rolls themselves are random, but the overall chance of success can be heavily influenced through both long-term strategy as well as combat tactics:

• on the offensive side, by optimizing your attacks-per-round, THAC0, and damage-per-attack through...
  • race/class/stat choices during character creation
  • weapon proficiency choices on level-up
  • choice of weapon
  • choice of fighting style (e.g. dual-wielding)
  • equipped gear (e.g. "Gauntlets of Weapon Expertise")
  • buffs (e.g. "Bless", "Improved Haste", ...)

...as well as by making effective use of the element of surprise (e.g. backstabbing), or debilitating enemies first (e.g. with spells such as "Web" or "Hold Person").

• on the defensive side, by optimizing your AC through...
  • race/class/stat choices during character creation
  • choice of armor
  • equipped gear (e.g. "Bracers of Defense")
  • buffs (e.g. "Barkskin")

...and/or by becoming impossible to hit at all, through...

• buffs (e.g. "Stoneskin", "Protection from Magical Weapons", "Invisibility")
• equipped gear (e.g. there is equipment that makes you immune to non-magical weapons, I believe)
• running away

Now for the sake of comparison, let's come back to:

 

Save-or-Die Spells

 

Of course the dice rolls themselves are random, but the overall chance of success can be heavily influenced through both long-term strategy as well as combat tactics:

• on the offensive side, by optimizing your spell casting speed or temporarily making your spell casting impossible to interrupt, through...
  • equipped gear (e.g. "Robe of Vecna" )
  • buffs (e.g. "Stoneskin", "Spell Turning", "Protection from Fire", ...)

...as well as by first removing the target's anti-death and anti-magic buffs (e.g. with the "Pierce Magic" spell)

...and lowering their magic resistance (e.g. with the "Lower Resistance" spell)

...and penalizing their saving throws (e.g. with the "Doom" or "Greater Malison" spells).

• on the defensive side, by optimizing your magic resistance and death-related saving throws and immunities, through...
  • race/class choices during character creation
  • equipped gear (e.g. "Ring of Protection +1", or even items that give flat-out immunity do death effects)
  • buffs (e.g. "Death Ward")

...or by becoming impossible to be targeted by enemy spellcasters (e.g. due to invisibility)

...and trying to interrupt enemy spellcasters as soon as they start casting a save-or-die spell.

 

 

In summary:

 

Both melee attacks and save-or-die spells are are based on random dice rolls, but each of them is also part of a larger game mechanic that allows the desired outcome (quick death for enemy, and prevention of death for own characters) to be very much controlled through both long-term and short-term player choices.

 

Both melee attacks and save-or-die spells have the potential to kill and enemy in a single round, if you prepare well and get a good die roll. I don't see why that's a problem.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Ineth

[rjshae]

Both melee attacks and save-or-die spells have the potential to kill and enemy in a single round, if you prepare well and get a good die roll. I don't see why that's a problem.

 

No. The possibility of a death from a spell or attack isn't the problem; the design issue seems to be that it was an all or nothing result, rather than being closer to a continuum of outcomes. Thus, all but the most extreme miss now causes at least some form of damage. What does that mean for binary outcome spells such as flesh-to-stone or disintegration? Well I'm speculating that there should now be the potential for some type of partial outcomes.

[Tsuga C]

What does that mean for binary outcome spells such as flesh-to-stone or disintegration? Well I'm speculating that there should now be the potential for some type of partial outcomes.

As long as the extremes are preserved, I'm not against a spectrum of possible outcomes. Flesh to Stone, for instance, should be in this ballpark: No effect--slowed to half, lose half of dexterity bonus for "x" duration--slowed to quarter speed, lose all dexterity bonus for "x" duration--petrified.

[Ineth]

the design issue seems to be that it was an all or nothing result, rather than being closer to a continuum of outcomes.

 

But why was that an "issue"?

 

The IE games had both: Spells/skills that where an "all or nothing" gamble, and ones that had something closer to a continuous probability distribution.

This accommodated different play styles, as well as different combat situations.

 

I don't understand why making everything more continuous, would results in a better game...

 

(I'm not trying to campaign against PoE or Sawyer's design decisions; I'll wait until I've played the game before judging whether its combat is fun. I just don't follow the arguments against save-or-die spells, or against melee misses for that matter, that have been given thus far.)

 

Thus, all but the most extreme miss now causes at least some form of damage. What does that mean for binary outcome spells such as flesh-to-stone or disintegration? Well I'm speculating that there should now be the potential for some type of partial outcomes.

 

Well, for the sake of balancing, it would probably also have to mean that either the end point is nerfed, or the spell has additional disadvantages, or becomes less accessible (e.g. moved to a higher spell level).

 

Because if a save-or-die spell is already useful and sufficiently powerful for its level as it is, then additionally giving it a spectrum of damage output for lower die rolls with no other changes, might make it over-powered.

[tajerio]

Ultimately the preference for save-or-die/no save-or-die is a subjective one--the objective arguments here are mostly window-dressing. 

[rjshae]

 

the design issue seems to be that it was an all or nothing result, rather than being closer to a continuum of outcomes.

 

But why was that an "issue"?

 

The IE games had both: Spells/skills that where an "all or nothing" gamble, and ones that had something closer to a continuous probability distribution. This accommodated different play styles, as well as different combat situations.

 

I don't understand why making everything more continuous, would results in a better game...

 

(I'm not trying to campaign against PoE or Sawyer's design decisions; I'll wait until I've played the game before judging whether its combat is fun. I just don't follow the arguments against save-or-die spells, or against melee misses for that matter, that have been given thus far.)

 

I believe the reason was that it makes the choice of tactics more important than the outcome of a single, random dice roll.

 

I.e. you can't just rely entirely on pure dumb luck to win a tough fight.

[Lephys]

The objective arguments weren't "therefore it's better." They're just "it does this, and that's a reason to choose to do it that way, instead."

 

I think there's quite a difference.

 

People just seem to have issues with taking objective analysis for what it is, then simply keeping their own subjective preferences. As if "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE" reason to do anything. This isn't Highlander.

[Namutree]

I've never had a problem with hit-or-die spells. On all the tough battles they just don't work; at least not without debuffs. At least, that has been my experience.

[Caerdon]

I've never had a problem with hit-or-die spells. On all the tough battles they just don't work; at least not without debuffs. At least, that has been my experience.

 

And you don't think that's a problem?

[Stun]

Well it's not. I believe this is the balance that the death spell detractors here claim does not exist with Death spells. Additionally, the Spell caster using those death spells has to deal with all the other standard checks and balances, such as Spell interruption, elongated casting times, general magic resistance, and in the case of HP-dependent death spells (like Power Word: Kill and Symbol: Death) correctly assessing how much health the target has left.

 

Death spells, like any other kind of spells, are situational. There will be times when they're super useful and times when they're worthless. In BG2 and Icewind Dale 2, they worked best when used against "generic" monsters and summons. Like... you see 2 beholders. You send all your melee/ranged guys against 1, then you have your Mage take out the other one with a finger of death or whatever.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Stun

[Hassat Hunter]

Since when should skills and powers be 100% useful instead of situational.

There's one of the main dumbing down things of modern games I hate... that apparently 'situational' constitutes useless, and thus should be eliminated.

 

Result, well, we know the results

[Iucounu]

I've never had a problem with hit-or-die spells. On all the tough battles they just don't work; at least not without debuffs. At least, that has been my experience.

I have to say I find this mostly true for the IE games. Opponents that were so weak that death spells were relieable against them, you could easily chop to pieces without using any spells at all. Against tough opponents I can say that I've never rided my luck and used a finger of death against a strong opponent without first debuffing him. In most cases you're better of casting crowd control spells and damage spells anyway, although there certainly are situations where death spells can be very useful.

In any case, yeah, if I cast greater malision, multiple dooms on an opponent, and then use three deathspells against him to bring him down without success, I'd probably feel justified to reload and try the same thing again (same if I casted another save-or-else spell like spook on him by the way, that is critical for winning the fight).

 

The interesting question that arises for me now is, at what point am I starting to rely on dumb luck for my tactics to work? If I have 10% chance of failure? Perhaps 5% or 1%?

Edited March 30, 2014 by Iucounu

[Ffordesoon]

It's worth noting that all this talk of death spells is academic. Why would a game inspired by the IE games that caps at Level 12 have death spells anyway? There are valid arguments in favor of death spells, to be sure, but they've gotta save something for the sequel/expansion/continuation/thingy.