Per-rest vs. Per-encounter

[Sensuki]

Fighters could use with not being pigeonholed into standing still so people can attack them.

[Shevek]

NWN2 had issues beyond its implementation of specific class features. Thats apples and oranges.

[illathid]

 

I wonder if people really feel it would be tactically deeper to have the fighter do nothing other than auto attack? Thats what it was in the ie games and that sucked. That was boring. In that game, fighters did nothing of interest other than die slowly. It was chess with 2 queens (casters) and 4 pawns (everyone else).

 

I am heavily enjoying fighter knockdown, barb stamina regen, and the like. Yes, you will suck more if you dont use it. Thats good game design.

FIghters could do TRIP, Knockdown and Power attack in NWN2. just saying. That did not help. At all. I wonder why... :D

 

 

Trip and Knockdown I'll give you, but power attack was amazing.

[Captain Shrek]

Fighters could use with not being pigeonholed into standing still so people can attack them.

Good luck with the HP/Stamina tied to class then.

 

 

NWN2 had issues beyond its implementation of specific class features. Thats apples and oranges.

 

Do ho ho No. Not at all. There are similar reasons why they are equivalent. In fact NWN2 had more abilities for melee classes and used more often than here, but never used because:

 

1) RTwP cluster****; who would bother if I could use wizard instakill instead, like in PoE! What a surprise!

2) Fighters were boring as their abilities were passive, like in PoE!

[archangel979]

Per encounter abilities could be more fun if they were made into a choice. Use X or Y, but not both once per encounter.

That could work to make it more tactical. Like you could activate your encounter abilities X number times per encounter but you get to choose which ones and how many times. In that case each use of one makes it a tactical choice.

Edited September 19, 2014 by archangel979

[Namutree]

Do you guys actually have fun auto attacking all the time? 

I certainly wouldn't. I also wouldn't have a party of just fighters though. Usually I have a party of four, and only 1 would be a fighter.

[Gfted1]

I wonder if people really feel it would be tactically deeper to have the fighter do nothing other than auto attack? Thats what it was in the ie games and that sucked. That was boring. In that game, fighters did nothing of interest other than die slowly. It was chess with 2 queens (casters) and 4 pawns (everyone else).

 

Power Attack, Critical Strike, Smite, Deathblow, Greater Deathblow, Whirlwind, Greater Whirlwind, Battle Cry, Hardiness and Resist Magic say hi (BG 2).

[Namutree]

I wonder if people really feel it would be tactically deeper to have the fighter do nothing other than auto attack? Thats what it was in the ie games and that sucked. That was boring.

As they are right now per-encounter abilities aren't any tactically deeper than just auto-attack; just more tedious. Making a battle that isn't engaging (Trash mob battles) more of a hassle is vastly more boring than any of the IE battles.

[archangel979]

 

I wonder if people really feel it would be tactically deeper to have the fighter do nothing other than auto attack? Thats what it was in the ie games and that sucked. That was boring. In that game, fighters did nothing of interest other than die slowly. It was chess with 2 queens (casters) and 4 pawns (everyone else).

 

Power Attack, Critical Strike, Smite, Deathblow, Greater Deathblow, Whirlwind, Greater Whirlwind, Battle Cry, Hardiness and Resist Magic say hi (BG 2).

 

And all of that is BG2:ToB. Before that you played BG1 and BG2 for 150 hours. 

Note that I like more simple fighters as I don't want to micromanage every party member (reason why I never tried all mage parties). I prefer to send my fighters to attack a target until they die and then just change their target while I micromanage my mages, clerics and rogues.

Edited September 19, 2014 by archangel979

[Namutree]

In that game, fighters did nothing of interest other than die slowly.

 

The fighter could also dish out damage like a boss. That was cool. Not to mention the fighters focus wasn't tactics; it was strategy. Which kind of weapons do you focus on? Which special armor did you give him/her? Was the fighter a tank, or a sniper? It wasn't how you used the fighter in battle that made it interesting. It was how you decided to set up your fighter that was cool. 

 

There were other, more tactical classes if you wanted them, but not all of them have to be focused on tactics to be interesting.

[Sensuki]

Good luck with the HP/Stamina tied to class then.

Not at all. If you have multiple tanks, you can't peel the Fighter off to play another role, they are terrible at it - whereas the Barbarian can tank and they can be DPS.

[Shevek]

 

I wonder if people really feel it would be tactically deeper to have the fighter do nothing other than auto attack? Thats what it was in the ie games and that sucked. That was boring. In that game, fighters did nothing of interest other than die slowly. It was chess with 2 queens (casters) and 4 pawns (everyone else).

Power Attack, Critical Strike, Smite, Deathblow, Greater Deathblow, Whirlwind, Greater Whirlwind, Battle Cry, Hardiness and Resist Magic say hi (BG 2).

Per rest ToB abilities used after what level again? Edited September 19, 2014 by Shevek

[Namutree]

 

 

Power Attack, Critical Strike, Smite, Deathblow, Greater Deathblow, Whirlwind, Greater Whirlwind, Battle Cry, Hardiness and Resist Magic say hi (BG 2).

ToB abilities used after what level again?

 

Not to mention they weren't per-encounter.

 

Edit: Scratch the second point.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Namutree

[Gfted1]

 

 

I wonder if people really feel it would be tactically deeper to have the fighter do nothing other than auto attack? Thats what it was in the ie games and that sucked. That was boring. In that game, fighters did nothing of interest other than die slowly. It was chess with 2 queens (casters) and 4 pawns (everyone else).

Power Attack, Critical Strike, Smite, Deathblow, Greater Deathblow, Whirlwind, Greater Whirlwind, Battle Cry, Hardiness and Resist Magic say hi (BG 2).

Per rest ToB abilities used after what level again?

 

 

Where do you reference a level range again?

[Shevek]

I didnt. I was making the point that ToB abilities dont mean a damn since you cant use them for the lions share of the game. If you like, I can use shorter words or simpler sentences when speaking to you if these sorts of things throw you off.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Shevek

[Namutree]

 

 

 

Power Attack, Critical Strike, Smite, Deathblow, Greater Deathblow, Whirlwind, Greater Whirlwind, Battle Cry, Hardiness and Resist Magic say hi (BG 2).

Per rest ToB abilities used after what level again?

 

 

Where do you reference a level range again?

 

I think it's safe to assume he was referring to lower level campaigns like BG1 since poe will have a similar level range.

[Gfted1]

I didnt. I was making the point that ToB abilities dont mean a damn since you cant use them for the lions share of the game. If you like, I can use shorter words or simpler sentences when speaking to you if these sorts of things throw you off.

 

Aww, went straight to the butthurt? Perhaps you should review what you posted:

 

 

 

I wonder if people really feel it would be tactically deeper to have the fighter do nothing other than auto attack? Thats what it was in the ie games and that sucked. That was boring. In that game, fighters did nothing of interest other than die slowly.

 

[Shevek]

Not to mention, how long would it take to get the functional equivalent of per encounter clickable abilities in a Bg1/Bg2 playthrough? You would need several levels past opening up the abilities for use to get what a fighter gets much much earlier in the game.

[Shevek]

 

 

 

 

I didnt. I was making the point that ToB abilities dont mean a damn since you cant use them for the lions share of the game. If you like, I can use shorter words or simpler sentences when speaking to you if these sorts of things throw you off.

Aww, went straight to the butthurt? Perhaps you should review what you posted:

 

 

I wonder if people really feel it would be tactically deeper to have the fighter do nothing other than auto attack? Thats what it was in the ie games and that sucked. That was boring. In that game, fighters did nothing of interest other than die slowly.

Arguing a technicality? Thats all you got?

[Namutree]

Not to mention, how long would it take to get the functional equivalent of per encounter clickable abilities in a Bg1/Bg2 playthrough? You would need several levels past opening up the abilities for use to get what a fighter gets much much earlier in the game.

What are the functional equivalent of per-encounter abilities in BG1/BG2?

[Shevek]

I mean as far as number of uses + additional abilities. Unless you rest after every single encounter in the BG2ToB (which, I admit, is certainly possible), you would need to pick a given ability several times to build up a good amount of uses or to pick some alternatives. Meaning not only would you have to have the abilities opened up but you would have had to level some beyond that. In this game, at level 5 or whatever, fighter has a modal and all kinds of abilities at his disposal.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Shevek

[Gfted1]

 

 

 

 

I didnt. I was making the point that ToB abilities dont mean a damn since you cant use them for the lions share of the game. If you like, I can use shorter words or simpler sentences when speaking to you if these sorts of things throw you off.

Aww, went straight to the butthurt? Perhaps you should review what you posted:

 

 

I wonder if people really feel it would be tactically deeper to have the fighter do nothing other than auto attack? Thats what it was in the ie games and that sucked. That was boring. In that game, fighters did nothing of interest other than die slowly.

Arguing a technicality? Thats all you got?

 

 

You made a blanket statement about the IE games and were incorrect. You can redefine the conversation as much as you like: "I meant low level", "I meant only part of the time, "I meant not ToB".

[Shevek]

I guess, man. Go look through the rest of what i wrote. I am sure you can find more technicalities and bring them up. That will certainly do wonders for this discussion.

[Killyox]

 

I didnt. I was making the point that ToB abilities dont mean a damn since you cant use them for the lions share of the game. If you like, I can use shorter words or simpler sentences when speaking to you if these sorts of things throw you off.

 

Aww, went straight to the butthurt? Perhaps you should review what you posted:

 

 

 

I wonder if people really feel it would be tactically deeper to have the fighter do nothing other than auto attack? Thats what it was in the ie games and that sucked. That was boring. In that game, fighters did nothing of interest other than die slowly.

 

 

 

As someone who is just reading this thread I got to say this is really unbecomming of a forum moderator. And as far as your discussions goes he did say ie gameS. You gave an example of ToB. Which was expansion to a sequel of a game and only at high levels. What with BG, IWD, PS:T BG2 early etc?

 

 

I myself like per-encounter and per-rest. 

 

To people who say having just auto-attack is the same as having current per-encounter skills - you are wrong

 

Simple autoattack has 0 space for decisions. Having abilities gives that space for decisions. You are also wrong saying it's bad not to use all per-encounter abilities. If you just spam then sure, it has no depth. But they should be used when needed. i don't just mindlessly Trip enemy for the sake of it. I fight and use it when needed. When my caster is attacked or enemy gets buffed or whatever else. If fight goes by with no real need to use it all then it's not a loss. I simply were prepared to certain extent to counter other stuff thrown at me.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Killyox

[Namutree]

 

Simple autoattack has 0 space for decisions. Having abilities gives that space for decisions. You are also wrong saying it's bad not to use all per-encounter abilities. If you just spam then sure, it has no depth. But they should be used when needed.

BS. They are better than standard attacks and not using them every encounter is sub-optimal. Period. No thought needed. Fight starts; use them right away. There are only a few exceptions to that situation right now. If they worked as you suggest they do there wouldn't be a problem, but they don't.

 

We aren't against the idea of per-encounter; only the implementation of them right now. As Sensuki said, the rogue ability is great because it has to be used correctly; you can't just haphazardly spam it every battle without a single thought. That's the way all the per-encounter abilities should be. Otherwise they're just a more tedious form of auto-attacking.