Warrior AoE attacks?

[ljbo]

I apologize in advance if that has already been discussed but I could not find any post discussing that subject. Warrior AoE attacks could make fighters more interesting at high level, versus spell casters.

 

For example, DA:O two-handed fighters had a circular sweep that damages and knocks down enemies all around: AoE with crowd control, i.e. squarely in spell caster business. That made them more worth to pick.

 

DA:O Awakening attempted to move further in that direction but most of the new AoE attacks were cheesy (worse one being a rain of arrows), badly balanced and even missing animations. Still, this line of thought was interesting and a few AoE melee attacks changed the way I thought about combat (e.g. the warrior plowing deep through enemy line, swinging left and right). With a better implementation, It could be a fine idea imho.

 

Any thoughts? Has it been considered for PoE?

[Sabotin]

As it happens barbarians are supposedly very good at dealing with multiple enemies. Not sure whether that's cause of AoE or some other mechanic, but there you have it.

[Sensuki]

Yeah they do have some limited use AoE abilities at higher levels.

 

Fighters can knock dudes on their asses, both individually and, at higher levels, in groups. Also they can act like big sheets of burly flypaper and catch scrubs who try to rush by them. Their disengagement attacks are gnarly, they constantly regenerate Stamina, they convert a percentage of Grazes to Hits (this was modified from their earlier Confident Aim ability), they can shield nearby allies, and they get weapon specialization. The specialization damage bonus isn't as flashy as using a paladin's Flames of Devotion, but they gain the damage benefit with every hit forever. They're designed to be reliable, efficient, and nigh-indestructible. They're not the guys you pick to have a single shining moment in the sun before they explode and collapse, but I think they are great characters.

[ljbo]

Thanks @sensuki. That sounds really great. Looking forward to it.

[Sensuki]

Fighters do sound like a very good class. I can see how an enemy composition of multiple fighters would be a pain in the ass to overcome.

[Prometheus]

The fighter has the ability to knockdown groups of enemies. known fighter abilities see here
 
If you want to attack group of enemies with weapons barbians are the best choice. They have a passive ability that does damage against enemies near their main traget. They also have a frenzy ability that has something to do with fighting against groups:
 
from Something Awful forums:

We set up a fight last week with (among other things) two aumaua barbarians dual-wielding battle axes. A lot of people provoked the fight at toe-to-toe range and the aumaua immediately Frenzied. It looked like they were just wading through the party cutting down wheat. Carnage rolls attacks and damage separately from the base attack, but it is still very nasty and bad news if a bunch of dudes are grouped up.

 
 

Barbarians are the best at dealing damage to groups at close range.  Like D&D barbarians, it's hard to give them the Flanked condition so it's safer for them to take on multiple opponents.  Their Carnage passive ability lets them progressively melee-AoE groups to death. And of course, they can Frenzy.

[AGX-17]

AoE doesn't sound like an appropriate term. Engaging multiple opponents isn't the same thing as chucking a magical/spiritual fireball or a bomb.

[Osvir]

Rethorical question:

Is a "Cleave" ability an attack that hits multiple enemies, or a "crescent" shaped AoE and the character is the center?

[Sensuki]

In D&D it's number 1.

 

in PE, it's probably the latter, but I would guess it's a cone shape.

Edited May 30, 2014 by Sensuki

[teknoman2]

Rethorical question:

 

Is a "Cleave" ability an attack that hits multiple enemies, or a "crescent" shaped AoE and the character is the center?

if you have played dota, it should be what the cleave attack of battlefury is... a % of the damage done to a target hits aditional targets in an arc around that target

[Osvir]

In NWN2 it's the same Teknoman (I think?). Though that is a passive skill~ and the DotA item is a passive item skill.

Consider the "Cleave" ability being an active ability instead.

In League of Legends there's a similar item, it has a passive and an active function. The passive function is full damage to first target and X% to the targets around it. A.K.A. "Splash" damage. The active ability deals X% of total damage to all enemies around the character.

[nipsen]

..Always imagined "cleave" would happen with a particularly good heave that went through the first minion, and stopped in the second one. ..actually, I used that in an interpretation of the rules once. That we rolled when attempting a cleave. And if it succeeded (critical hits would pass through superior armor on the first target, etc) you would roll again up to the number of extra hits, given that there were enough minions nearby.

 

So maybe it's really an aoe attack?

 

I don't know, though. In general, I'd be skeptical about fighters having aoe attacks unless it's a magic or divinely assisted character class. They'd be able to compensate for weaker attacks with certain huge wisdom based blasts once in a while - and that would make sense. Would never be as specialized or skilled as a good fighter, but would still be able to do some unique front-line damage anyway in certain circumstances. So limits/specialisation on the fighters sort of makes sense narratively as well as mechanically, seems to me.

[Lephys]

I find it rather simplistic when melee "maneuvers" and what-have-you are simply treated as "AOE." So, I'm with AGX on that one.

 

A couple of abilities -- sweeps and such -- might work that way, but others should be handed in a specifically different fashion. Combos that strike multiple opponents, etc. Makes the melee combat that much more interesting, instead of just "damage area -- 5 foot radius; damage type -- sword", as opposed to "damage area -- 5 foot radius; damage type -- fire."

[teknoman2]

it will all be clear in the next update... so be patient young padawans

[Suburban-Fox]

I hope not! I hate things like that, and they put me off most modern RPGs. Non-magic user classes shouldn't be able to replicate the effects of magic users, and the idea that somebody can hit multiple opponents with the same swing is ridiculous. So is being able to hurt, stun, or knock people down by stomping the ground, or shouting at them. I know, fantasy, and all that, but there are limits.

 

I quite like most of the ones listed on page linked earlier in this thread, except for the "knock down groups of enemies" one. As long as I can get by without using it, I won't mind too much, but I really hope the game isn't designed in such a way that playing without that ability will be impossible.

 

Honestly, I don't understand the need for all classes to have a resource management aspect, and to be able to basically do the same thing but with a different graphical representation, but I guess I'm in a minority here.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Suburban-Fox

[illathid]

Thing is all classes are using soul power and so I see no reason why traditional non-magical classes shouldn't be able to perform extraordinary feats that would be impossible for someone in our world.

 

As I see it, PoE doesn't have any Non-magic user classes. They just use different types of magic.

[Mor]

Rethorical question:

 

Is a "Cleave" ability an attack that hits multiple enemies, or a "crescent" shaped AoE and the character is the center?

In our case its likely the former, because the later is governed by intellect and not something Barbarian abilities are geared for, me think.

 

 

Barbarians are the best at dealing damage to groups at close range.  Like D&D barbarians, it's hard to give them the Flanked condition so it's safer for them to take on multiple opponents.  Their Carnage passive ability lets them progressively melee-AoE groups to death. And of course, they can Frenzy.

I don't get it, why it should be harder to give a Barbarian the Flanked condition, isn't Flanking is just about engaging someone who is engaged from the opposite side? Edited June 1, 2014 by Mor

[nipsen]

http://wednesdaysheroes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/03Ernie-chan-conan-1.jpg

 

^Less protection, less refined technique - better reach, more hits. 

 

(not that it's easy to read that out of the d&d rules for barbarians )

[Suburban-Fox]

Thing is all classes are using soul power and so I see no reason why traditional non-magical classes shouldn't be able to perform extraordinary feats that would be impossible for someone in our world.

 

As I see it, PoE doesn't have any Non-magic user classes. They just use different types of magic.

 

So...does everybody in the world have "soul power", or just those who are adventurers?

 

If the former, then the wider implications need to be considered...what is "soul power" capable of, and in what way would that be applied to every day life? Can, for example, a cobbler use "soul power" to create a really awesome pair of shoes (thereby negating the need for basic sewing, pattern cutting, etc)?

 

If the latter, what is it about you and your companions that makes you special? If a select group of people have "soul power", doesn't that mean that there's likely going to be some form of class segregation? Surely those with "soul power" - members of a kind of adventurer class, so to speak - will naturally regard those without it as worthless peasants, to be either protected, or trodden on. Further, this would also mean that nobody who isn't gifted with "soul power" is able to become an adventurer, thereby making it no longer a career choice open to anybody willing to take the risks, but a specialised trade in which only a few can do.

 

Neither variant particularly appeals to me...but then, I'm quite traditional in that I prefer my PC to come from humble backgrounds, and earn the right to be a hero by working for it, rather than have it given to him by having special powers. This is just a personal preference, though, and it seems it may not be the case in this game, which is a shame.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Suburban-Fox

[illathid]

 

Thing is all classes are using soul power and so I see no reason why traditional non-magical classes shouldn't be able to perform extraordinary feats that would be impossible for someone in our world.

 

As I see it, PoE doesn't have any Non-magic user classes. They just use different types of magic.

 

So...does everybody in the world have "soul power", or just those who are adventurers?

 

If the former, then the wider implications need to be considered...what is "soul power" capable of, and in what way would that be applied to every day life? Can, for example, a cobbler use "soul power" to create a really awesome pair of shoes (thereby negating the need for basic sewing, pattern cutting, etc)?

 

If the latter, what is it about you and your companions that makes you special? If a select group of people have "soul power", doesn't that mean that there's likely going to be some form of class segregation? Surely those with "soul power" - members of a kind of adventurer class, so to speak - will naturally regard those without it as worthless peasants, to be either protected, or trodden on. Further, this would also mean that nobody who isn't gifted with "soul power" is able to become an adventurer, thereby making it no longer a career choice open to anybody willing to take the risks, but a specialised trade in which only a few can do.

 

Neither variant particularly appeals to me...but then, I'm quite traditional in that I prefer my PC to come from humble backgrounds, and earn the right to be a hero by working for it, rather than have it given to him by having special powers. This is just a personal preference, though, and it seems it may not be the case in this game, which is a shame.

 

 

Ah, you're a simulationist. Ok, good to know. You may not like my response then.

 

The only people able to use soul power are those that the narrative calls for. So if the plot called for an extradorianry cobler who could make shoes that allowed you run as fast as a cheetah with only mundane materials, that would be fine. It would also be fine if cobblers could never wield soul power either. What ever the narrative calls for is what will occur.

 

Regarding your comment about working for your power, I don't see how this system would change anything in that regard. It's not as if you'll start at level 10 or something. You still need to work hard to become a hero/gain your soul power.

[Mor]

So...does everybody in the world have "soul power", or just those who are adventurers?

 

If the former, then the wider implications need to be considered...what is "soul power" capable of, and in what way would that be applied to every day life? Can, for example, a cobbler use "soul power" to create a really awesome pair of shoes (thereby negating the need for basic sewing, pattern cutting, etc)?

Soul powers is really just a fancy name for a unified theory of magic, saying that all abilities stem solely from within you i.e. Paladins/Priest/Druids/Warriors etc

 

Yes, everybody in the world have such innate "soul power", but not everyone soul is strong enough or they experienced enough to access it. It would certainly have some every day life applications, but overall don't expect their users prevalence in the general population to be too high (otherwise it would diminish the "magical" nature of magic), IMO in this regard we shouldn't expect something vastly different from what we encountered in the Forgotten Realms setting.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Mor

[PrimeJunta]

So...does everybody in the world have "soul power", or just those who are adventurers?

 

If the former, then the wider implications need to be considered...what is "soul power" capable of, and in what way would that be applied to every day life? Can, for example, a cobbler use "soul power" to create a really awesome pair of shoes (thereby negating the need for basic sewing, pattern cutting, etc)?

They talked about this a quite a bit during the KS and the updates, IIRC. Too lazy to dig up the references, but to my recollection --

• Not all souls are equal. Some are strong, some are weak, some are fractured, and so on. I.e., not everybody has a soul powerful enough to produce magical effects, even with training.
• Use of soul powers requires discipline and training. Hence animancy, orders of paladins and monks, adventurers tempering their souls through practice, and so on.

I.e., your strong-souled cobbler would be entirely feasible, and a weak-souled adventurer would probably not get very far. Not very democratic, I know!

 

Ah, you're a simulationist. Ok, good to know. You may not like my response then.

 

The only people able to use soul power are those that the narrative calls for. So if the plot called for an extradorianry cobler who could make shoes that allowed you run as fast as a cheetah with only mundane materials, that would be fine. It would also be fine if cobblers could never wield soul power either. What ever the narrative calls for is what will occur.

A preference for consistency in lore is not simulationism*, and Obsidian is clearly putting a lot of effort into it. They've enthused about how the soul mechanic informs the lore -- where undead come from, what the best kind of steel is, how the different societies relate to animancy, what their attitudes are to manifested soul powers, how the gods feed into all that, and so on.

 

I said in an earlier discussion in a somewhat different context with someone else that just because it's fantasy does not mean that anything goes. A well-built fantasy world and fantasy story still has to be internally consistent; to respect its own rules. "No soulful cobblers because :pout:" is lazy and sloppy. Obsidian is not lazy and sloppy with their lore; that's in fact the one thing that they do miles better than anyone else in the business.

 

*Simulationism has nothing to do with lore, actually. Simulationism is the view that a game system should be designed to simulate some real or imagined aspects of the world the game happens in, and the accuracy or believability of the simulation is more important than fun in gameplay. This discussion isn't even about the mechanics; it's about the lore. Hence the accusation of simulationism is entirely tangential.**

 

**I too prefer my games to be enjoyable rather than accurate. Many years ago I have dabbled with some flight simulators aiming for maximal realism, but then I discovered that flying a simulated airliner is really boring once you figure out what the buttons do. However, I do especially enjoy games that manage to excel both in believability and in enjoyability, and I think it would be cool if someone once made a cRPG that explicitly attempted to be both. I even have some ideas on how that could work, but that's a whole different topic.

[illathid]

A preference for consistency in lore is not simulationism*,

 

I agree with about everything you've said, but I want to address this specifically. IMHO Suburban Fox was not asking for consistency in lore. It was as you note a discussion about the mechanics. His first post mentioned him finding a fighter being able to "to hurt, stun, or knock people down by stomping the ground, or shouting at them" ridiculous. In effect he was saying "Fighter abilities should be based upon what someone in the real world could do." A sentiment common to simulationists.When I mentioned that this doesn't necessarily make sense in the game world, he used the soul powered cobler example as an reductio ad absurdum as to possible use of soul power. Again, this suggests a desire that mechanics be a reflection of what is possible in the real world. So maybe Mr. Fox is not simulationist, but his responses sure sound like it to me. I appoligize if that's a mischaracterization.

[Suburban-Fox]

When I mentioned that this doesn't necessarily make sense in the game world, he used the soul powered cobler example as an reductio ad absurdum as to possible use of soul power.

 

Actually, I used that example for clarification. I apologise if it sounded like I was ridiculing the concept because that wasn't my intention. I simply wished to clarify whether it was a common thing in the world, or something exclusive to the PCs, or adventurers, and pointing out possible implications of either variant.

 

True that I would prefer it if fighters aren't capable of magical attacks, but I guess that's just a personal preference. I prefer low magic settings, where magic is a majorly big deal (even better when abuse of it has potential consequences). I also prefer it when you're not crazy-powerful, and capable of doing things that nobody else can, because I'd much rather be Aragorn than Superman. But again, that's just my personal preference.

 

The only thing that really bugs me about RPGs is when the world doesn't follow its own rules, and doesn't consider the wider effects of such things as magic on the rest of the world. All I really ask is that the world makes sense, so if soul power is common then it should be applicable to every day life in some way - it does depend on what it's actually capable of, but a wider use does need to be at least considered, hence my soul powered cobbler example. If it's rare than that should lead to the emergence of a special class that is able to use it, and considers themselves above those who aren't.

[Lephys]

^ I second Illathid's sentiments, in that it seemed as though Suburban-Fox was vying for realism. Also, in response to the "it should be impossible to hit multiple people in a single swing" thing, I'm pretty sure that isn't true, even within the bounds of simulation. I'm pretty certain it's possible to slice 2-or-more torsos with a single move of the blade. What isn't possible is performing a spinny attack that simply damages everyone within a certain distance of you. Now, if you create a magical whirlwind, or otherwise project some sort of energy, then cool. If you cause your blade to become SO sharp (again, supernaturally) that it slices through anything like a lightsaber, then, still cool. But, if your blade's simply supposed to be slashing in a spinning frenzy, it shouldn't just strike people standing behind other people, etc.

 

Again, mechanically, that makes it feel like the same thing as "Magic Nova," only it's "Blade Nova," dealing Blade-type damage in a circle instead of Magic. I think IF they're going to have Fighters (for example) combatting folks in a real-ish manner, then it should act differently. Again, maybe you get to pick a few targets for a combo, or maybe you get to hit only those few people nearest you (anyone further away would get missed by a spinning blade/slash), etc. That makes it not only mechanically unique, but also more interesting.

 

I have absolutely no problem with Fighters being able to do supernatural things, so long as there is actually consistency in the lore (a supernatural force/ability is cited as the source of some maneuver, etc.). So long as it doesn't become so similar to some other class as to be negatively dissimilar/bland.

 

Also, just for what it's worth, in regard to the typical "shout and make people's defenses go down"-type abilities, I think it'd be interesting to see much more plausible functions/designs for those. For example, sometimes people like elaborate finishing blows, purely for eye candy. But, what if one of the Fighter's moves was to elaborately overkill an opponent, purely to strum at the fear string in the remaining foes' minds? "Oh my crap! Look how brutal this guy is!" Then, that in-the-moment terror/effect could manifest as a numerical defense detriment, and/or morale break/panic (behavior would change -- attack speed lowered, abilities used/wasted all willy-nilly, fleeing, etc.).

 

Just a thought.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Lephys