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

[Stun]

If you got to pick between two debuffs, one that made your target take 20% more damage on hit, and one that made him take 1,000,000% more damage on hit, would that be fine?

 

Because, that's the same concept as "this ability kills instead of dealing some finite amount of damage."

No. That's not what's going on.

 

First off, your damage % analogy is off the mark. The Debuffing involved here operates on a different wavelength. In the case of death spells, you'd debuff their success chance. Specifically The debuff would attack their saving throws. So the choice would be:

 

1) A debuff that makes the target take +20% more damage

 

or

 

2) a Debuff that reduces their fortitude saves by 20%

 

Well? If you're about to toss a Finger of Death at them, you'd probably want to use the second debuff. Alternatively though, you could decide to toss the first debfuff at them, because that would at least insure that if they DO make their save, they will take more damage than they'd normally take from a successful save against Finger of Death.

 

 

The ONLY balancing factor an insta-death spell has is "it's not likely to work." There is no support from oodles of combat factors, because it's just an absolute effect comparison to a lesser effect -- death versus just some finite damage.

That's a big So What?

 

Hey, Lephys. Have you ever heard the saying: "Variety is the spice of life"? It also applies to a cRPG's combat system. More to the point: The addition of a few spells that buck the practice of: "whittle their health down gradually" only add to a system's dynamics. They do not: a) replace that system; 2) break that system; 3) ruin all tactical combat 4) Kill all innocent puppies in a 30000 mile radius; 5) Make life not worth living.

 

Really. Trust me. BG2 did not go down in the history books as a failure. It went down as one of the greatest RPGs ever created. And BG2 had more Save or Die spells, weapon effects, item powers, traps, and enemy abilities than your head can comprehend.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Lephys, what I've found with your theorycrafting guessing about a system and gameplay that you've never tried (eg. BG2 and it's various spells and ways to use them) is that a lot of what you say doesn't make sense. And it doesn't help when you litter your posts with exaggerated examples that aren't in the game.

 

Take for example another games like Diablo 3. Your follower, the Enchantress has the ability to turn most enemies into a chicken. Even some bosses like Zoltun Kulle. I even posted a screen shot of it in the Diablo 3 thread. When in chicken form, the enemy can't do anything other than run around like a chicken. It's also an aoe spell. So if the Enchantress casts it on a group of enemies, they all turn into chickens. Even though it has a short duration, it's basically an insta-death spell because you can go and kill them while they don't harm you. Does it detract from the game? Hell, no. It's frickin hilarious if she pulls it off. Games are meant to be fun and stuff like this is fun for a lot of players. If it's not fun for you, then play the game your way. Don't use the spell. Nobody's forcing you. But at least let us who enjoy the spells in BG2 to have fun with them. If the rules or game allows it, I don't see a problem with insta-death type spells.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Endrosz]

The metamagic idea refuses to drop from my mind for several days now, and it occurred to me that there was a universal metamagic system in a recent ARPG: The Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing.

 

-- Every character, not matter the the class or build, has a Rage pool which works as expected: you get Rage by killing mobs, and Rage fades out slowly when you're not in combat.

-- For every active skill, there are a few "metamagic mods" that cost a skill point to learn. These apply mods to the skill like larger area of effect, an additional effect, and so on. Each has associated Rage cost, the better the effect, the larger the cost.

-- There is an interface element where you create a preset combo of mods for your active skills. In combat you can apply the combo with the press of a button: it consumes the Rage, and the next use of the skill will be enhanced with the preset metamagic mods in the combo.

 

 

What I like about this system was that it applied to every active skill, not just certain classes or skills. Essentially, it's a skill tree multiplier, making the game more diverse without making it overcrowded. Also, since the mods are tied and tailored to the skills, there are no balance issues arising from certain combinations of skills and (universal) mods. What I dislike is the skill point cost, similar to metamagic costing feats in DnD3. Again, Rage, which isn't an on-demand resource like mana, is sufficient to balance out the effects. The other thing I disliked that Rage generation was based on kills only, not on-hit and on-being-hit (preferably both). That means that Rage is not reliable as a resource in boss or difficult elite pack fights.

 

I would love to see something like this in the future included in Eternity's skill system.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Endrosz

[Naesh]

[....] it's basically an insta-death spell because you can go and kill them while they don't harm you. Does it detract from the game? Hell, no. It's frickin hilarious if she pulls it off. Games are meant to be fun and stuff like this is fun for a lot of players. If it's not fun for you, then play the game your way. Don't use the spell. Nobody's forcing you. But at least let us who enjoy the spells in BG2 to have fun with them. If the rules or game allows it, I don't see a problem with insta-death type spells.

I think insta-death spells with a small chance of success would work just fine with an ironman mode what i mentioned earlier. ) And you could decide at the start of the game if save-scumming is for you or not. Because lets be honest: any player who can't overcome an enemy at a certain point of the game (due to bad character build, for example) will try the save-scum-insta-death-spell combo, using the possibility to load the game arbitrarily many times to manually raise the chance of the success of the spell. I think some people will play this way and they will enjoy the gaming experience, despite the cheat. But an ironman mode, where saving / loading is limited to some rare resources found in the game.... now that i would try!

Edited April 3, 2014 by Naesh

[savior1024]

 

• Why do you have to pay copper pieces when you learn a new spell from an enemy's grimoire? To whom do you pay it?! I think it would make much more sense to have some other cost, e.g. while learning the spell, it could take up two slots instead of one and/or even being uncastable until you learn it. Also, the idea of materials as foci could actually explain why you lose money (have to buy that ruby ink...)

^this one I completely approve of, as in the older editions of D&D there was indeed a monetary/material/time cost attached to learning new spells and scribing scrolls into your spellbook. It was one of the prices you paid for power. Back in the day, magic used to be a Big Deal. Spells were a significant game changer on the battlefield.

 

But hey, just be thankful Obsidian is only implementing a "copy cost". They could easily have done much much more. In the old editions of D&D every time you cast a spell there's a monetary cost, as most spells have material components, most of those components are rare and many of them are quite expensive, and all of them are consumed when the spell is being cast.

 

My point exactly, but in the other way around: why bring back such outdated concepts? Or at least do it in a way that makes sense. Actually, in a low-magic world, I would even prefer component-management to copy-cost, at least for the more powerful spells. And I am not thinking bat guano

[Lephys]

No. That's not what's going on.

 

First off, your damage % analogy is off the mark. The Debuffing involved here operates on a different wavelength. In the case of death spells, you'd debuff their success chance.

That's just plain wrong. You either don't understand the comparison, or you're intentionally disregarding it.

 

You already have a success chance factor with anything else that causes damage, thus potentially produces death (a state of 0 HP). So, the only functional difference between a "this kills you" spell and a "this just does some amount of damage, which could or could not kill you depending on other factors (this is AFTER it's already "succeeded" in hitting you, and hasn't failed to hit you, so that's completely moot in this matter.)

 

When one hits, you die. When another hits, you take damage that does not automatically equal death. That is what it's functionally bringing to the table. Along with an alteration in the success percentage scale (it's typically a lot harder to get it to hit than it is for a regular attack or offensive spell to land).

 

Thus, as I pointed out, the reason that's all fine and dandy is because the more "OP" it would be against a particular enemy, the less likely it is to work (possibly even impossible). And the more pointless it would be to use on a particular enemy, the more likely it is to succeed.

 

Which... kinda cancels out its uniqueness. Which is why I made all the other comparisons that we're apparently going to pretend are nonsensical. If you have a big, AoE fireball, and you run into a situation in which there's a huge group of enemies, that's the most desirable time for you to use that spell instead of some other action, in order to maximize its effectiveness. The game's not like "the more enemies there are grouped together, the worse decision it will be to use this AoE fireball that would probably be your best bet in that situation, if not for the horrible success chance."

 

That's what it comes down to, really. The entire idea behind tactics is to use what resources you have in the most effective manner possible. But, the entire idea behind the balancing of insta-death effects is that the chances of their success is directly inversely proportional to the potential of their effectiveness in a given situation.

 

And if it's not done that way, then, in isolation, the ability is at least more tactical, but now it's just super over-powered. "Oh, a big scary dragon that has 3,000 HP and hardly anything we have can hit it? This death spell has an 80% chance of killing it instantly!" So, you either get like a 1% chance of it working on the dragon, or it's just-plain immune, in which case, why is there even an ability whose effectiveness is maximized primarily by the general "toughness" of the foe you're fighting? It's a bit of a self-defeating design, really.

 

I realize gambling is fun, and instantly killing things is fun, but I really don't mind that not-being in, and that time and resources being spent on other things.

 

Lephys, what I've found with your theorycrafting guessing about a system and gameplay that you've never tried (eg. BG2 and it's various spells and ways to use them) is that a lot of what you say doesn't make sense. And it doesn't help when you litter your posts with exaggerated examples that aren't in the game.

What I've found is that you're imagining I ever claimed I was accurately analyzing BG2 and its spells, specifically, and that my examples were supposed to be in some game. I do not know why.

 

Also, I don't understand how describing how something works is "theorycrafting." If you put a flame to some paper it will catch on fire. Therefore, I think it is problematic if you build something out of paper when it's going to be exposed to flames.

 

See. That's not theorycrafting. That's describing how paper reacts to fire.

 

Insta-death effects possess a certain dynamic within the overall system, whether you like it or not. They just do. It's perfectly fine to simply like them anyway, and point out their virtues. But, to pretend that I'm just making up nonsense is simply preposterous.

 

I find it a little funny that I acknowledge just about every single thing presented in counter to my arguments, and yet, somehow 99.9% of everything I type is completely nonsensical and doesn't even exist. "Noooo, that's not a difference between regular damage effects and insta-death effects."

Edited April 3, 2014 by Lephys

[Ineth]

For the record, BG2 did have some metamagic effects reminiscent of those available as feats in D&D3 - although in a somewhat hidden place: In the Wild Surge table¹!

 

Most of the possible wild surges were unrelated to the spell being cast, but there were some metamagic effects in there, including:

• the spell is cast twice
• the spell becomes an Area-of-Effect spell
• the spell is cast at double level  (relevant for spells that scale with the caster's level)
• the saving throw that enemies are allowed to make against the spell is increased

The best one I ever got was one time when I had my wild-mage cast "Simulacrum"² in preparation for a difficult boss fight, and got the "Area effect" wild surge, so every party member got a simulacrum... Even the warrior, rogue, and priest ones... And even the other mage who had already cast Simulacrum just before that, got a second one... And yeah, it put me above the normal summoning limit³...

Let's just say, the boss didn't have much of a chance against such an army...

 

Wild Mages rock! But I digress. The point is, metamagic modifiers were not unknown to the Infinity Engine world.

 

 

-----------------------------

 

footnotes for those who haven't played BG2 or don't remember it well:

 

¹⁾ The Wild Surge table was a list of 100 things - some good some bad some purely cosmetic - that could randomly happen each time a "Wild Mage" character cast a spell, or in certain rare circumstances, even with a regular mage.

 

²⁾ Simulacrum is a powerful spell in BG2 that creates a temporary duplicate of the caster, with only 60% of their hit-points and level, but otherwise identical and able to cast spells and attack with weapons just like the caster. Only mages can cast the spell, and each mage can normally only have 1 simulacrum at a time.
 

³⁾ The party can normally only have up to 5 "summoned" allies in total at any one time. Casting additional summoning or simulacrum spells after that, does not work.

 

[Ineth]

As for the Save-or-Die spells discussion, it seems to be going in circles.

 

Let's just say that for some of us, those spells turned out to be fun in practice in games such as BG / BG2 / IWD / IWD2, so arguing on an abstract level about what theoretical "problems" they allegedly cause, is not likely to convince us.

• They did not break those games for us.
  (We had plenty of fun.)
   
• They did not incite us to save-scum.
  (I personally had no qualms about shameless reloading in the IE games, especially when a party member died and I didn't have the means to resurrect them -- but I can't remember ever reloading in order to make a death spell against an enemy succeed. Canceling and re-doing an entire battle with all its dozens or hundreds of die rolls, painstakingly retracing all my previous steps, just to try and get a different outcome for a single spell in the middle of the battle? Doesn't sound smart or fun to me.)
   
• Their usefulness, as we experienced it, was situational.
  (In some combat situations they were very useful, for example when fighting against multiple mid-level enemies, and you've already cast Greater Malison¹ on them anyways, and you want to take out one of the farther-away ones like an archer or mageling  while your warriors are busy fending off the nearer ones. In other situations - e.g. fights against a single big bad high-level boss, or against low-level trash mobs  - they did not tend to be tactically useful at all).

 

And that's that, from my side.

 

 

------------------

 

¹⁾ an Area-of-Effect spell that slightly lowers the saving throws of all enemies in the target area.

[Lephys]

As for the Save-or-Die spells discussion, it seems to be going in circles.

 

Let's just say that for some of us, those spells turned out to be fun in practice in games such as BG / BG2 / IWD / IWD2, so arguing on an abstract level about what theoretical "problems" they allegedly cause, is not likely to convince us.

It's not even really "problems." More just, effects, factors, traits. Feel about them as you please. Maybe they're not a big deal to you, or maybe you just plain like the abilities and their functions enough that you don't really care. That's all fine and dandy. The only issue I have is with people pretending I'm making up stuff.

 

If people would just say "that's great, but I still like them," I'd just say "cool beans." But, for some reason, everything is friggin' Highlander with some people here. EITHER they've got a point, or I've got a point. There's no way we could both have feasible points and/or perspectives on the same thing! My goodness! It's downright silly.

 

We're not deciding whether or not such things are going to be in the game, here. They've already decided they aren't, according to Josh. Thus, all I've tried to do in all of the discussions regarding this is point out the reasoning behind the decision. That doesn't mean there's no reason whatsoever to decide to put them in a game. It just means that there is, in fact, a reason to not put them in a game. I don't understand why it's gotta be some kind of war or something.

[Stun]

That's just plain wrong. You either don't understand the comparison, or you're intentionally disregarding it.

 

You already have a success chance factor with anything else that causes damage, thus potentially produces death (a state of 0 HP). So, the only functional difference between a "this kills you" spell and a "this just does some amount of damage, which could or could not kill you depending on other factors (this is AFTER it's already "succeeded" in hitting you, and hasn't failed to hit you, so that's completely moot in this matter.)

 

When one hits, you die. When another hits, you take damage that does not automatically equal death. That is what it's functionally bringing to the table.)

Thank you for shepherding us into your narrow, black and white world! You do realize, I hope, that these 2 (at least in BG2) are NOT the only outcomes possible and that is why the addition of Save or Die fits so well, tactically in the system. Lets accurately list what is REALLY brought to the table.

 

1) You've got hits that do damage but don't kill

2) You've got hits that don't do any damage.

3) You've got hits that physically kill

4) You've got "hits" that magically kill (death spells)

5) You've got hits that produce more than one effect. Like Damage + something else (stun, sleep, poison, hold, , fear, confusion, dispel, silence, slow, and oh yeah...Death.

6) You've got Death spells that actually require a successful melee hit and also require a successful save

7) You've got hits that do damage to both the target and the attacker

8.) You've got death spells that "hit" and end up still doing nothing, because of the target's immunities, either magical or innate.

9) You've got reflected hits.

 

In light of all these, the "death spells are over powered" argument is nonsensical. An argument can be made that the majority of the above is over-powered. But ultimately all such arguments are completely pointless, since in this system every tool available to the player is also available to the enemy.

 

Thus, as I pointed out, the reason that's all fine and dandy is because the more "OP" it would be against a particular enemy, the less likely it is to work (possibly even impossible). And the more pointless it would be to use on a particular enemy, the more likely it is to succeed.

I'm not sure why you think that's the "ultimate" argument that my side has (you've attempted to counter it a bajillion times on this thread). It isn't. I'd argue that even if these spells always succeeded against everything, they'd still fit perfectly in a tactically deep RPG. Lephys, these spells are not common place. They're difficult to acquire, and even when acquired, their frequency of use is a lot more limited than you're making it out to be. They compete in their respective levels with far more useful, less situational spells, and...again... If you can use them, then so can the enemy.

 

 

Which... kinda cancels out its uniqueness.

You mean its variety? No, it doesn't. a spell that can do 40 damage is different than a spell that can insta-kill.

 

And if it's not done that way, then, in isolation, the ability is at least more tactical, but now it's just super over-powered. "Oh, a big scary dragon that has 3,000 HP and hardly anything we have can hit it?

See, this is where I think the source of the disagreement stems from. The IE games are not Modern MMOs where bosses are bosses because they have 1000s of hit points. In the IE games, nothing has a 4 digit health pool. NOTHING. If Dragons had 3000 hitpoints, then I'm pretty sure the devs would never let us have death spells, Or, they'd just adopt a sweeping universal rule that states that all enemies with more than 1000 health are immune to death spells. Because when an enemy's Health pool is his most powerful defense, then everything changes. The entire dynamic is changed. Edited April 4, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

1) You've got hits that do damage but don't kill

2) You've got hits that don't do any damage.

3) You've got hits that physically kill

4) You've got "hits" that magically kill (death spells)

5) You've got hits that produce more than one effect. Like Damage + something else (stun, sleep, poison, hold, , fear, confusion, dispel, silence, slow, and oh yeah...Death.

6) You've got Death spells that actually require a successful melee hit and also require a successful save

7) You've got hits that do damage to both the target and the attacker

8.) You've got death spells that "hit" and end up still doing nothing, because of the target's immunities, either magical or innate.

9) You've got reflected hits.

That's a really lovely list of things that have nothing to do with what makes the insta-death effect different from any other effect that's available to the player. Thanks for that.

 

I quite literally referenced the fact that the variety of actions/effects at your disposal at any given time exists regardless of whether or not insta-death spells are in the mix or not. Also, chance exists in almost every single ability/action that you can perform, so that's ruled out as some unique factor, too. Thus, what we have left is an effect option that's functionally "maximum damage for significantly lower accuracy/chance-of-success."

 

Tell me that's wrong. For once, actually respond to what I'm saying in-context. Explain to me how a spell that instantly kills something is different in so many other ways from a spell that simply deals 10 damage. I can't wait to hear it.

 

 

Thus, as I pointed out, the reason that's all fine and dandy is because the more "OP" it would be against a particular enemy, the less likely it is to work (possibly even impossible). And the more pointless it would be to use on a particular enemy, the more likely it is to succeed.

I'm not sure why you think that's the "ultimate" argument that my side has (you've attempted to counter it a bajillion times on this thread). It isn't. I'd argue that even if these spells always succeeded against everything, they'd still fit perfectly in a tactically deep RPG.

 

I'm not sure why you think I think that. I said nothing about anyone's side, nor did I attribute that argument to anyone at all. You're so blinded by the idea this is a competition that someone's going to win, somehow, you can't fathom my not pointing that out as some kind of "and so I beat your side, HA-HAH!". At least, that's how it seems.

 

 

You mean its variety?

No, I don't mean its variety. Thanks for contradicting a claim I didn't make, though. Why would you even ask what I mean by something if you're just going to answer your own question with an assumption? That's productive. 

 

See, this is where I think the source of the disagreement stems from.

The only thing stemming from what you quoted is your inability to comprehend the function of an example. If I say "100 hitpoints," you would say "there are things in the IE games with more hitpoints than that," because you wouldn't understand that the number was just an example of "something with a lot of hitpoints that you're obviously not going to kill with ease because you simply don't do that much damage." So I said "3,000" in my hypothetical, because there aren't many RPGs in which you easily deal 3,000 damage with a regular hit (not ones similar to the IE games, anyway). So, you knew what I meant, and I've pointed this out many a time, and still, you get more enjoyment out of correcting some example number that's technically infeasible than you do out of actually caring what the hell the point is.

 

I'm done with you. Seriously. You're ridiculous. You put 0 effort into discussion. Possibly less than 0, since you actively make discussion difficult, voluntarily. Responding to you is pointless. Have a good one, *wave*

[Hiro Protagonist II]

What I've found is that you're imagining I ever claimed I was accurately analyzing BG2 and its spells, specifically, and that my examples were supposed to be in some game. I do not know why.

 

Also, I don't understand how describing how something works is "theorycrafting." If you put a flame to some paper it will catch on fire. Therefore, I think it is problematic if you build something out of paper when it's going to be exposed to flames.

 

See. That's not theorycrafting. That's describing how paper reacts to fire.

 

Insta-death effects possess a certain dynamic within the overall system, whether you like it or not. They just do. It's perfectly fine to simply like them anyway, and point out their virtues. But, to pretend that I'm just making up nonsense is simply preposterous.

 

I find it a little funny that I acknowledge just about every single thing presented in counter to my arguments, and yet, somehow 99.9% of everything I type is completely nonsensical and doesn't even exist. "Noooo, that's not a difference between regular damage effects and insta-death effects."

 

 

Another case of dodging the issue and then veering off on some wild insane tangent with some example of setting paper on fire. Using science and real life examples like lighting a match and setting paper on fire is irrelevant. I have no idea how anyone can come up with something so preposterous. Truly insane. I'd recommend actually playing BG2 and experimenting with all the spells and then you'll realise that insta-death type spells aren't all that.

 

If you are going to use real life examples like setting paper on fire, how is shooting an arrow at an enemy in the hand or arm or their eye the same damage? Ever heard of critical hits? Why shouldn't a critical hit (especially to the head) result in near insta-death? A lot of game systems have that. And that could be skill. Or pot luck just like a lottery. Like it can happen in real life. And if you do acknowledge that critical hits for things like melee or ranged weapons can happen which they should, as a lot of game systems do, which can result in possible insta-death type scenarios, then why not something similar with insta-death type spells.

 

"I acknowledge just about every single thing presented in counter to my arguments"? So, you're just debating for debating's sake. Anyone counters your posts, you feel compelled to acknowledge what they point out and go the opposite way. Well, that's just being stubborn. How about actually playing BG2 to test out your theories. And as Stun said, BG2 was a critical success and part of the enjoyment players had were with the spells and the variety they had. Okay. you can have the last say, even though it will probably be more nonsense.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Stun]

That's a really lovely list of things that have nothing to do with what makes the insta-death effect different from any other effect that's available to the player.

You're right. There's no difference at all between a magic missile that does 2-5 damage to a target, and a Disintegrate spell that turns that target to dust.

 

You got me there. LOL

 

I quite literally referenced the fact that the variety of actions/effects at your disposal at any given time exists regardless of whether or not insta-death spells are in the mix or not. Also, chance exists in almost every single ability/action that you can perform, so that's ruled out as some unique factor, too. Thus, what we have left is an effect option that's functionally "maximum damage for significantly lower accuracy/chance-of-success."

Indeed, it's never good to have multiple choices. I mean, a warhammer does blunt physical damage. And so does a mace. Why does any game need both when it can get by with just one?

 

Again you got me!

 

 

Tell me that's wrong

What's wrong? Most of what you're saying is about as wrong as wrong can be. Can you be a little more specific?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I don't mean its variety.

Then your argument is a straw man. I never claimed that Death Spells are unique. So why are you trying to counter me by arguing that they're not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

only thing stemming from what you quoted is your inability to comprehend the function of an example. If I say "100 hitpoints," you would say "there are things in the IE games with more hitpoints than that," because you wouldn't understand that the number was just an example of "something with a lot of hitpoints that you're obviously not going to kill with ease because you simply don't do that much damage." So I said "3,000" in my hypothetical, because there aren't many RPGs in which you easily deal 3,000 damage with a regular hit (not ones similar to the IE games, anyway). So, you knew what I meant, and I've pointed this out many a time, and still, you get more enjoyment out of correcting some example number that's technically infeasible than you do out of actually caring what the hell the point is.

Bullsh*t. You cannot give Wildly exaggerated examples of something in order to make your argument look "better" or "obvious" and then cry foul when your opponent shoots those examples down as the bunk that they are.

 

<gag>

 

 

I'm done with you. Seriously.

I doubt that. You will, of course, continue to incessantly respond to every single poster (including me) who dares dispute your ridiculous illogical arguments. Here and elsewhere. Edited April 4, 2014 by Stun

[Endrosz]

For the record, BG2 did have some metamagic effects reminiscent of those available as feats in D&D3 - although in a somewhat hidden place: In the Wild Surge table¹!

 

I played pen-and-paper AD&D set in the Time of Troubles with a cleric/mage, so I know all about wild magic effects. My favorite one was when using a Wand of Lightning in a desparate situation against giants, it produced a flock of butterflies streaming from my character's mouth (effect 34 on the wild magic surge table). We all laughed our asses off.

 

But wild magic has nothing to do with metamagic. Metamagic is:

1. A desired extra effect (e. g. augmented duration)

2. For a corresponding price (spell levels in the case of DnD3).

 

You control metamagic. You don't control wild magic, that's the whole point of it.

[Ffordesoon]

@Stun and Hiro:

 

Personally, I think you two are just baiting Lephys. I don't see how you can be so relentlessly critical of the guy and his arguments without ever acknowledging he has even the slightest shade of a point. I don't agree with you on these issues, but I think you have solid points occasionally. You just argue in bad faith, which Lephys - whatever his sins - has never done. Not that I've seen, anyway.

 

I'm sorry to backbench moderate, but as a third (fourth?) party who's been watching this little tete-a-tete play out for a while now, I have to say that I have only seen Lephys respond patiently to a bunch of baiting hogwash that completely ignores his points in favor of nitpicking his examples. If Lephys can be accused of using kettle logic or proof by verbosity sometimes, then I accuse you fellows of moving the goalposts and engaging in the continuum fallacy, among other things.

 

And yes, I'm engaging in the psychologist's fallacy right now, the difference being that I know my own biases are biases. I a am also aware that using Wikipedia as a primary source opens me up to claims of false attribution, except that I'm only using Wikipedia as a source for the purpose of easy definition, not because I necessarily believe in every conclusion every Wikipedia page would seem to support.

[Stun]

@Stun and Hiro:

 

Personally, I think you two are just baiting Lephys. I don't see how you can be so relentlessly critical of the guy and his arguments without ever acknowledging he has even the slightest shade of a point.

I *get* his points... or rather, his 1 or 2 points that he's managed to word in 10,000 different ways. Oh, and This isn't the first time that I, personally, have engaged him in the "save or die" discussion. It's about the 7th time in 12 months. None of his arguments have changed either. In fact, when you whittle down every post he's ever made on the topic you get this:

 

1) Magic that lets you "shortcut" your way to victory is bad, M'kay?

2) Binary and luck make combat "untactical".

 

Both of these have been thoroughly addressed, debated and disputed... over and over and over again. Not sure what more you want. Agreement? No. He won't get it. Because he's wrong. Some of us have played BG2 and Icewind Dale 2. Both of those games, with their brilliant, unmatched tactical combat are, by themselves, physical proof that he's WRONG.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Stun

[Mr. Magniloquent]

An "instant death spell" is unbalanced only the way that the more powerful of any given two weapons, spells, or items are unbalanced. In D&D, a 5th level Wizard now has access to the Fireball spell. This spell is capable of inflicting 6 to 30 damage to all creatures within a 30' sphere, whilst Magic Missile can only inflict 6-15 damage to a single target. At level five, the a great many of the enemies you are likely to face will not be able to survive a 5d6 damage roll, and that roll can be committed against the entire field! Unbalanced much? What about boring?

 

The death spells within the IE and Aurora Engine games worked. They didn't break them, nor did they ruin them in any fashion. They were a great and flavorful addition to them. Observationally, they worked well. I can't think of any games were there even were any instant-death-spells. Concisely, I can't find any evidence contrary to the successes of those spells within the IE and AE games.

[cornishr]

This thread has literally made me feel ill.

 

If i had a finger of death, i'd use it now.

Edited April 4, 2014 by cornishr

[Lephys]

But wild magic has nothing to do with metamagic. Metamagic is:

1. A desired extra effect (e. g. augmented duration)

2. For a corresponding price (spell levels in the case of DnD3).

 

You control metamagic. You don't control wild magic, that's the whole point of it.

Yeah, they're both pretty awesome. I love wild magic when it doesn't get too crazy. A lot of magic systems, though, just kind of lack that aspect of metamagic control. D&D has it, but the whole differing spell levels thing was always a bit much to keep up with, for me, relative to the benefit you're gaining. I'd almost rather have something more on-the-fly, like a stamina cost (especially in PoE's health/stamina system) added, and/or an extended cast time or something. Or, maybe even just a "re-shaping"/equivalent-exchange system, in which if you boost the potency of a fireball, for example, the AoE radius shrinks by a proportional amount. Same amount of fireball, just more focused into burn intensity instead of spread. Or maybe it does less burn damage, but more forcibly explodes to knock everyone down.

 

Even if it's simplified to branches, those options are always nice.

 

I know it's mostly a preference thing, but I'm always a fan of that idea of some level of direct control over the shaping/flow of magic, instead of just the rigid "This is my Fireball! There are many like it, but this one is mine!" kind of set-in-stone spells. I mean, sometimes you get feats/talents and the like that say, boost your spell range, or increase the damage of a certain type of spell, etc. But, then THOSE are still just kind of rigid. If you take one, then now you're an "all my spells are more damagey" wizard. You just kind of specialize across the board.

 

It doesn't even just go for spells. It'd be kinda nice if the idea behind metamagic manipulation applied to Fighters and such, as well. Obviously not every single ability or anything. There's a lot of design specifics to nail down with something like this. But, maybe you have a "strike the nearest 5 targets in quick succession" attack, and, you can shift it from 5 down to 4 targets for a critical hit chance bonus or something.

 

Ability versatility. It eez nice, no? Even if it's pretty subtle (which is understandable -- if you just let everything shift around however you wanted, then every ability would just be a certain "shifted instance" of the same ability.)

[Archmage Silver]

Good stuff, I like the lore-friendly separation of Wizard and Druid casting techniques.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

@Stun and Hiro:

 

Personally, I think you two are just baiting Lephys. I don't see how you can be so relentlessly critical of the guy and his arguments without ever acknowledging he has even the slightest shade of a point. I don't agree with you on these issues, but I think you have solid points occasionally. You just argue in bad faith, which Lephys - whatever his sins - has never done. Not that I've seen, anyway.

 

I'm sorry to backbench moderate, but as a third (fourth?) party who's been watching this little tete-a-tete play out for a while now, I have to say that I have only seen Lephys respond patiently to a bunch of baiting hogwash that completely ignores his points in favor of nitpicking his examples. If Lephys can be accused of using kettle logic or proof by verbosity sometimes, then I accuse you fellows of moving the goalposts and engaging in the continuum fallacy, among other things.

 

And yes, I'm engaging in the psychologist's fallacy right now, the difference being that I know my own biases are biases. I a am also aware that using Wikipedia as a primary source opens me up to claims of false attribution, except that I'm only using Wikipedia as a source for the purpose of easy definition, not because I necessarily believe in every conclusion every Wikipedia page would seem to support.

 

Not baiting at all. The fact that you accuse myself (and stun) with baiting and not Lephys is ridiculous. Also, I don't think you are sorry at all for backbench moderating. The forum already has moderators. Many people come onto the forums and don't feel compelled to moderate others, so why you? You don't see myself or other people telling posters what to do and what not to do. If you don't like how a discussion is turning out, why not move on? There's many threads on these forums that I read and yet I don't feel compelled to jump in (even if I don't like how a discussion is turning out), to chastise and backbench moderate. A totally random post that attacks other posters and nothing else. Maybe I see my time as important than jumping into a thread to backbench moderate and attack other posters.

 

All I see with your post is accusatory finger pointing while letting Lephys off with his incorrect points. You use words like 'If Lephys', but then attack us. How long did you spend time forming this post? Wouldn't it be better to actually contribute to the discussion? No? If anything, your post is the one who's baiting as it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion, uses nonsensical arguments to back up your position and overall completely pointless.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Jarrakul]

On the subject of save-or-die spells (and I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been said), the point isn't that luck==bad. The point is that, when one is designing probabilistic systems, it is very important to understand how different probability distributions affect gameplay. Save-or-die effects give really weird value curves, for two reasons. The first reason is obvious. They either work or they don't (sometimes with some minor secondary effect), and if they work they're amazing. So even if they have the same expected utility as another attack, they'll have much more extreme results in both directions. It's the difference between rolling 1d20 and 1d6+7. They have the same average, sure, but they have very different ranges, and lead to different sorts of gameplay. 1d6+7, for example, is far more affected by static modifiers, while 1d20 is more affected by the opportunity for repeated attempts. To go back to the subject of this discussion, save-or-die gameplay is all-or-nothing, and therefore only synergizes with effects that increase its chance of success. Normal damage, on the other hand, synergizes with all other sources of normal damage, because their effects are additive. This leads to very different sorts of gameplay (although I won't argue here that one or the other is "better"). Equally important, save-or-die effects are far more affected by random chance than damage effects are (because damage effects are are small, additive randoms that, together, become very strongly inclined towards their total mean, whereas save-or-die effects have a much weaker tendency towards their overall mean), and therefore they create a less stable difficulty curve. In fact, the same battle may have very different difficulties between reload. This is not totally without advantages, as it creates a certain unpredictability that can be fun, especially on repeated playthroughs. However, it also makes battles virtually impossible to correctly balance, and therefore severely damages the developer's ability to create any sort of pacing or growth effects in difficulty (do not take this to mean the developers lose all ability to do this; I only mean that they lose a large chunk of that ability).

 

The second key difference is not actually been damage and save-or-die, but between straight damage and %-damage. Save-or-die can be construed as effects that deal 100% of the target's health in damage. Like all effects that deal %-based damage, these effects scale very strangely depending on the opponent. At their best, these effects give players a useful way to take down high-durability targets. Some spells should indeed work better against some foes. That's cool. At their worst, however, %-damage effects produce some very strange difficulty curves, especially at the high percentages and when percentages are the only effect applied (10 damage +2% is very different from 15% damage in how they each scale against different opponents). Certain characters now find high-durability targets to be just as squishy as low-durability targets, which is very difficult to balance for. Since save-or-die effects deal 100% damage, they are the logical extreme of this principle. If a group has a save-or-die effect, hit points and other conventional defenses become irrelevant to any party using save-or-die tactics (which, as noted above, synergize poorly with damage tactics, so a mixed-form party is at least somewhat unlikely). This once again makes it difficult to balance the difficulty between players, particularly between players employing save-or-die tactics and players employing conventional damage tactics.

 

So, my argument is this: Randomness is not bad. Some degree of chance can be useful to add variety to encounters, particularly across multiple playthroughs. However, as with many things, extremes can become problematic, in this case because they can significantly alter the game's fundamental difficulty curve. Save-or-die effects are necessarily high-variance random effects, and therefore add a very large element of randomness to the game. Even when save-or-die effects are purely optional, their mere presence adds another layer to the balancing problem and takes developer time, and players who use these effects will still often experience a very strange difficulty curve that undermines the developers' original intent for the game. While I can understand the desire to add randomness to the game, adding the high level of randomness created by save-or-die effects seems to create more problems than it solves.

[Ffordesoon]

On the subject of save-or-die spells (and I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been said), the point isn't that luck==bad. The point is that, when one is designing probabilistic systems, it is very important to understand how different probability distributions affect gameplay. Save-or-die effects give really weird value curves, for two reasons. The first reason is obvious. They either work or they don't (sometimes with some minor secondary effect), and if they work they're amazing. So even if they have the same expected utility as another attack, they'll have much more extreme results in both directions. It's the difference between rolling 1d20 and 1d6+7. They have the same average, sure, but they have very different ranges, and lead to different sorts of gameplay. 1d6+7, for example, is far more affected by static modifiers, while 1d20 is more affected by the opportunity for repeated attempts. To go back to the subject of this discussion, save-or-die gameplay is all-or-nothing, and therefore only synergizes with effects that increase its chance of success. Normal damage, on the other hand, synergizes with all other sources of normal damage, because their effects are additive. This leads to very different sorts of gameplay (although I won't argue here that one or the other is "better"). Equally important, save-or-die effects are far more affected by random chance than damage effects are (because damage effects are are small, additive randoms that, together, become very strongly inclined towards their total mean, whereas save-or-die effects have a much weaker tendency towards their overall mean), and therefore they create a less stable difficulty curve. In fact, the same battle may have very different difficulties between reload. This is not totally without advantages, as it creates a certain unpredictability that can be fun, especially on repeated playthroughs. However, it also makes battles virtually impossible to correctly balance, and therefore severely damages the developer's ability to create any sort of pacing or growth effects in difficulty (do not take this to mean the developers lose all ability to do this; I only mean that they lose a large chunk of that ability).

 

The second key difference is not actually been damage and save-or-die, but between straight damage and %-damage. Save-or-die can be construed as effects that deal 100% of the target's health in damage. Like all effects that deal %-based damage, these effects scale very strangely depending on the opponent. At their best, these effects give players a useful way to take down high-durability targets. Some spells should indeed work better against some foes. That's cool. At their worst, however, %-damage effects produce some very strange difficulty curves, especially at the high percentages and when percentages are the only effect applied (10 damage +2% is very different from 15% damage in how they each scale against different opponents). Certain characters now find high-durability targets to be just as squishy as low-durability targets, which is very difficult to balance for. Since save-or-die effects deal 100% damage, they are the logical extreme of this principle. If a group has a save-or-die effect, hit points and other conventional defenses become irrelevant to any party using save-or-die tactics (which, as noted above, synergize poorly with damage tactics, so a mixed-form party is at least somewhat unlikely). This once again makes it difficult to balance the difficulty between players, particularly between players employing save-or-die tactics and players employing conventional damage tactics.

 

So, my argument is this: Randomness is not bad. Some degree of chance can be useful to add variety to encounters, particularly across multiple playthroughs. However, as with many things, extremes can become problematic, in this case because they can significantly alter the game's fundamental difficulty curve. Save-or-die effects are necessarily high-variance random effects, and therefore add a very large element of randomness to the game. Even when save-or-die effects are purely optional, their mere presence adds another layer to the balancing problem and takes developer time, and players who use these effects will still often experience a very strange difficulty curve that undermines the developers' original intent for the game. While I can understand the desire to add randomness to the game, adding the high level of randomness created by save-or-die effects seems to create more problems than it solves.

[Stun]

On the subject of save-or-die spells (and I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been said), the point isn't that luck==bad. The point is that, when one is designing probabilistic systems, it is very important to understand how different probability distributions affect gameplay. Save-or-die effects give really weird value curves, for two reasons. The first reason is obvious. They either work or they don't (sometimes with some minor secondary effect), and if they work they're amazing. So even if they have the same expected utility as another attack, they'll have much more extreme results in both directions. It's the difference between rolling 1d20 and 1d6+7. They have the same average, sure, but they have very different ranges, and lead to different sorts of gameplay. 1d6+7, for example, is far more affected by static modifiers, while 1d20 is more affected by the opportunity for repeated attempts. To go back to the subject of this discussion, save-or-die gameplay is all-or-nothing, and therefore only synergizes with effects that increase its chance of success. Normal damage, on the other hand, synergizes with all other sources of normal damage, because their effects are additive. This leads to very different sorts of gameplay (although I won't argue here that one or the other is "better"). Equally important, save-or-die effects are far more affected by random chance than damage effects are (because damage effects are are small, additive randoms that, together, become very strongly inclined towards their total mean, whereas save-or-die effects have a much weaker tendency towards their overall mean), and therefore they create a less stable difficulty curve. In fact, the same battle may have very different difficulties between reload. This is not totally without advantages, as it creates a certain unpredictability that can be fun, especially on repeated playthroughs. However, it also makes battles virtually impossible to correctly balance, and therefore severely damages the developer's ability to create any sort of pacing or growth effects in difficulty (do not take this to mean the developers lose all ability to do this; I only mean that they lose a large chunk of that ability).

Have you forgotten that even standard, physical damage, be it d20 or 1-6+7, from any weapon cannot even occur in the first place until the very same 'probabilistic system' is applied to it? More to the point: You will do zero damage if you MISS. So You're saying nothing here. The only difference is the effect itself. Straight Damage from a sword has a larger (but still finite) range of effects than a Finger of Death. So what?

 

That's not really a good argument for the exclusion of death spells, is it. The Ideal system should never be limited to just one of the two, when it can have both at play, simultaneously.

 

 

The second key difference is not actually been damage and save-or-die, but between straight damage and %-damage. Save-or-die can be construed as effects that deal 100% of the target's health in damage. Like all effects that deal %-based damage, these effects scale very strangely depending on the opponent. At their best, these effects give players a useful way to take down high-durability targets. Some spells should indeed work better against some foes. That's cool. At their worst, however, %-damage effects produce some very strange difficulty curves, especially at the high percentages and when percentages are the only effect applied (10 damage +2% is very different from 15% damage in how they each scale against different opponents). Certain characters now find high-durability targets to be just as squishy as low-durability targets, which is very difficult to balance for. Since save-or-die effects deal 100% damage, they are the logical extreme of this principle. If a group has a save-or-die effect, hit points and other conventional defenses become irrelevant to any party using save-or-die tactics (which, as noted above, synergize poorly with damage tactics, so a mixed-form party is at least somewhat unlikely). This once again makes it difficult to balance the difficulty between players, particularly between players employing save-or-die tactics and players employing conventional damage tactics.

This is Nonsense. We're not dealing with a simplistic, shallow system where the only definition of "high durability" is: "It's got a bunch of health!" lol. We're dealing with a FAR more complex RPG.... like BG2, where high durability is measured by Health, Good saves, Magic resistance, Buffs, immunities, and about a dozen other defining factors.

 

So, my argument is this: Randomness is not bad. Some degree of chance can be useful to add variety to encounters, particularly across multiple playthroughs. However, as with many things, extremes can become problematic,

Aaah, I see someone has taken the Lephys straw man and decided to run with it.

 

Death spells are not an extreme.... of anything. It may be convenient to try and define them as High damage spells that do 100% of the enemy's health pool in damage and thus conclude, via comparison with a sword swing, that they are "the extreme!", but that's neither accurate nor honest. First off, They're *magic*. They operate within the magic system and should be compared to other spells, not anything else. If you compare any magic to weapon damage, then most spells, by definition, will appear to be extreme. For example: Fireball. a well placed fireball never misses and can nail 10+ enemies for massive damage ALL AT ONCE. A sword swing cannot. It can miss, and even if it doesn't, it can only hit 1 enemy. Conclusion: fireball is extreme. And it's only a 3rd level spell... imagine that.

 

Second, Josh Sawyer already stated that it will be completely possible, in PoE's system, to one-shot-kill something, so the argument being put forth is that a SPELL that one-shot kills = extreme, while anything else that one-shot kills isn't. That is LITERALLY the argument being made. As ridiculous as it is.

 

No, your best bet is to dispense with this thinly veiled attempt at "objectivity" and just use the lazy end-all: Death spells suck because of Luck/Randomness. Which is bad. (BTW, for some bizzare reason I haven't figured out, Luck used to be wonderful thing that fueled all the combat drama in the IE games, but is now seen as horrible flaw that should never be.)

Edited April 7, 2014 by Stun

[Jarrakul]

Have you forgotten that even standard, physical damage, be it d20 or 1-6+7, from any weapon cannot even occur in the first place until the very same 'probabilistic system' is applied to it? More to the point: You will do zero damage if you MISS. So You're saying nothing here. The only difference is the effect itself. Straight Damage from a sword has a larger (but still finite) range of effects, while a Slay living spell does not. So what.

That's not really a good argument for the exclusion of death spells, is it. The Ideal system should never be limited to just one of the two, when it can have both at play, simultaneously.

 

The idea that it's all random, and therefore all has the exact same sort of probability spread, is kind of nonsense. Damage typically has a higher chance of being successful but a lower payoff. Save-or-die necessarily has a higher payoff, and therefore needs a lower chance of success to be remotely balanced (assuming equal number of targets, etc). Hence, the probability spread is quite different. If you don't understand that, I'm afraid I don't know what to say. This is basic probability here.

 

 

 

This is Nonsense. We're not dealing with a soulless, shallow system where the only definition of "high durability" is: "It's got a bunch of health!". lol We're dealing with a FAR more complex RPG.... like BG2, where high durability is measured by Health, Good saves, Magic resistance, Buffs, immunities, and about a dozen other defining factors.

 

Yes, obviously the system can handle different sorts of durability. But the more the system relies on additional systems for fundamental issues of durability, the more complex it becomes and the more difficult it is to balance. Sense the presence of save-or-die effects has a massive effect on the durability-contribution of any characteristic that can be used to resist such effects, the presence of save-or-die effects makes balance much more complicated to maintain. Not impossible, mind, but far more difficult.

 

Aaah, I see someone has taken the Lephys straw man and decided to run with it.

 

Death spells are not an extreme.... of anything. It may be convenient to try and define them as High damage spells that do 100% damage and thus conclude, via comparison with a sword swing, that they are "the extreme!", but that's neither logical nor honest. First off, They're *magic*. They operate within the magic system and should be compared to other spells and not anything else. If you compare any magic to weapon damage, then most spells, by definition, will appear to be extreme. For example: You're 12th level, and you got 10 enemies in front of you and you cast Fireball. You will do 12-72 points of damage to 10 enemies in 3 seconds. Now, compare that to a fighter swinging his sword at just 1 of those enemies and doing 1d8+4 damage to it. Yeah, Fireball is extreme too, since in this case, the sword swing is only damaging 10% of the battlefield, while the fireball is hitting everyone, and doing far more damage.

 

Second, Josh Sawyer already stated that it will be completely possible, in PoE's system, to one-shot-kill something, so the argument being put forth that a SPELL that one-shot kills = extreme while anyting else that one-shot kills isn't is Hypocricy. 

 

 

Actually, I'm not taking Lephys's anything. As I said, I haven't read most of the thread. This is purely from me, with my 18 years of D&D and crpg experience.

 

I'm not comparing death spells to sword blows. I'm comparing them to everything that deals damage. That includes sword blows, but it also includes fireballs. And, I'm sorry, but the mere idea that save-or-die spells are anything but extreme in their effects is simply ludicrous. Beating the target is, by definition, a highly extreme effect against that target.

 

Now, as to one-hit-kills, I'm pretty sure Josh was referring to the fact that stamina totals will be such that sometimes things will die in one hit, just from damage. That will naturally apply to some enemies and not to others (for example, a guard might be one-shotted, but a dragon won't be). This is fundamentally different from having abilities (and frankly, I don't give a **** if they're spells or sword blows) with the potential to one-shot literally anything in the game (or anything in the game that isn't arbitrarily immune).