392 Discussion

[curryinahurry]

That's why I'm thinking that giving differential Critical hit damage for weapons might be the solution.  If nothing else changes (besides possibly, the endurance/health numbers), then we can look at light weapons either having a higher multiple for crit damage or, possibly, applying a Might bonus (let's say 5% per point) on top of the regular bonus. You would get something for a dagger wielded by a rogue with 15 strength like; 10-16 (not sure if that's right anymore) x 1.5 x 1.75 (base damage for crit multiplier being 1.5 which would be 1.0 at strength of 1).  

 

A straight crit differential multiplier would also be fine...and certainly less complicated, although it would make Might even less relevant.

Edited January 9, 2015 by curryinahurry

[Sensuki]

For me it's just because bonus damage is handled in percentages. When you roll a graze, the amount of bonus damage you get from the hit is significantly decreased, from all sources. When you roll good damage, you get heaps of bonus damage.

 

Imagine how consistent damage would be if Might gave +1 damage per point up from 10, and Fine/etc weapons gave +X damage as well, and all that.

 

That still wouldn't fix a lot of the issues. In those screenshots, my Druid had 10 Might. So that's purely from how the system works.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Sensuki

[curryinahurry]

True, but that's not going to change at this point.  I think that normalizing percentage based damage means creating opportunities for builds to compensate for lack of base dps (via light weapons as an example) by creating some risk/reward opportunities that might allow for high damage output.  Another way this can be augmented is by creating Talents that bolster light weapon builds.

[Sensuki]

I'm finding the issue more serious with per-day spells. When you get a bad result on a per-day ability that's a much bigger deal than a bad result from a weapon swing. If I get a poor roll on an AoE opener, I just reload.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Sensuki

[curryinahurry]

Spellcasting magic is in a much more subservient role to melee in PoE than it ever was in the IE games.  It's funny, because I was always a spellhoarder in the IE games because of my PnP background, so the changes  in PoE are fine with me, but I can certainly understand why so many complaints have been raised about the nerfing of Wizards etc. 

[Sensuki]

Anyone tried a Dual Stiletto Wielding Priest of Skaen with Prey on the Weak and Weapon Focus Ruffian? Kinda like having a Rogue with Priest spells. Pretty good.

 

Spellcasting magic is in a much more subservient role to melee in PoE than it ever was in the IE games.  It's funny, because I was always a spellhoarder in the IE games because of my PnP background, so the changes  in PoE are fine with me, but I can certainly understand why so many complaints have been raised about the nerfing of Wizards etc.

Hasn't got anything to do with that. Even D&D 4E handled this better, because on per day misses, the ability wasn't used up, which was a good design decision. The addition of graze and the unified attack resolution mechanics make it handle worse than 4E in that regard.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Sensuki

[curryinahurry]

Nah,  you have to go back and look at why the design decisions were made in the first place.  You've got causality out of order.  Designers always work with some type of intent; it's never shooting arrows in the dark.  That said, they are still adding/changing spell usage and per rest abilities.  Hopefully they will find the right balance.

[Sensuki]

I do not care why the design decisions were made (and I know why they were made). I care about results. I am giving my feedback based on those results. Those results include the facts that combat is more swingy than the Infinity Engine games, and blowing a per-day and getting a bad result sucks and encourages me to reload.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Sensuki

[curryinahurry]

Yeah, you can't separate the two and expect to get coherent resolution.  Let's leave it with, "I don't completely disagree with your conclusions", I would just like to find solutions that are more systemic and less localized.

[Sensuki]

I haven't really proposed any solutions in this thread, I have just stated that because they're using percentages they are getting these results. I also would like a solution to be found in a similar manner, if possible.

[prodigydancer]

I care about results.

And that's the only thing worth caring about. Design decisions aren't a holy cow. If the system doesn't work, it means the decisions were wrong and the rationale behind them was faulty.

 

From a neutral bystander's point of view the combat system in BB has gone a full circle. It started with people complaining about beetles being OP and now in v392 it's back to people complaining about beetles being OP.

[Sensuki]

In the next patch, creatures will be more balanced. It's more just general system-wide issues.

[PrimeJunta]

I do not care why the design decisions were made (and I know why they were made). I care about results. I am giving my feedback based on those results. Those results include the facts that combat is more swingy than the Infinity Engine games, and blowing a per-day and getting a bad result sucks and encourages me to reload.

 

But but but, lots of IE spells were exactly like that. Especially the really powerful single-target ones like Rigid Thinking, Feeblemind, Dire Charm etc. Why is consistent damage so much more important than consistent status effects? Even I didn't reload just if a Rigid Thinking didn't bite.

[Sensuki]

Good question I guess. I've never been bothered by a status effect not working because I simply accepted the absolute nature of the situation. Most of the time it was because you were casting those spells on a creature with immunity/protection or something, and then there's also counterspelling to consider.

 

That's probably also why I didn't use them very often. In BG2 one of the problems you'll run into in the game is that many spells are only useful in a certain scenario because many enemies/creatures are just simply immune to lower level spells or certain types of spells. That's just the nature of D&D and something I've always accepted.

 

I have no problem with damage or affliction immunity, it's very easy to work around.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

Won't comment on BG2 as it's been many years since I last played it and I only started a playthrough now, but I did use those quite a lot in IWD just now. Individual uses against less powerful targets in mob fights, and several at once on a resistant boss. I found them extremely effective, even against enemies with magic resistance or high saves. With several casters in the party, I had a bunch of them memorized; in a boss fight where I was figuring I'd rest afterwards anyway I simply hit the boss with all of them at once. This worked great if the enemy's chance to avoid the effect was, say, around 50%, and acceptably a good way beyond that. Expending two to four spells to get a boss out of a fight is not a prohibitive cost IMO.

 

In fact, I think I only used Fireball, like, once, and I might as well not have. Used magic for status effects, buffs, and counters, melee and arrows for damage. Was a lot of fun that way. Holy Smite was awesome not so much because of the damage but because it blinded everybody for a round. Made all the difference e.g. with Yxonomei and that Corrupted Temple fight. Also used it to great effect to suppress various massed evil archers for the time it took to get to them.

[Luckmann]

Good question I guess. I've never been bothered by a status effect not working because I simply accepted the absolute nature of the situation. Most of the time it was because you were casting those spells on a creature with immunity/protection or something, and then there's also counterspelling to consider.

 

That's probably also why I didn't use them very often. In BG2 one of the problems you'll run into in the game is that many spells are only useful in a certain scenario because many enemies/creatures are just simply immune to lower level spells or certain types of spells. That's just the nature of D&D and something I've always accepted.

 

I have no problem with damage or affliction immunity, it's very easy to work around.

 

Greater Malison, Doom, Doom, Doom, Chromatic Orb.

 

Dead Dragon.

 

But yeah, I agree that absolute results are actually way easier to deal with than swingyness. You're just "Well, I guess that didn't work." rather than "Gaaah, why did 4 people take single-digit damage and 2 almost died?".

[Sensuki]

Oh absolutely, if you're up against an enemy with Magic Resistance or high Saves - Greater Malison and Doom work like a charm. Icewind Dale also makes it more 'fair' to use those types of spells (Status effecting ones).

 

But yeah, I agree that absolute results are actually way easier to deal with than swingyness. You're just "Well, I guess that didn't work." rather than "Gaaah, why did 4 people take single-digit damage and 2 almost died?".

Exactly.

[PrimeJunta]

But but you can also work around the damage swinginess. Most of the time if your AoE didn't bite, it's because you were attacking Deflection and your Accuracy wasn't high enough. So attack Will instead. There are scads of spells there that attack Will (or some other defense) to do damage and debuff Deflection. Then hit them with something that attacks Deflection.

 

Just like working around status condition immunities, see?

[Sensuki]

That has nothing to do with the minimum damage on a graze being like 2 and the maximum damage on a crit being like 85 for the same spell against the same DR.

 

You will also notice that I had high accuracy in those two screenies. The first one I just got real unlucky rolls vs 2 targets (single digit rolls), and the second I got four crits.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Sensuki

[archangel979]

In ie games I never reloaded due to spells missing.

but in ie spell missing meant half damage in case of damage spells which often was still decent damage.

The problem of PoE is not grazes but DR working vs damage spells that do damage different than physical.

it should not work like that. It screws up spell effects and number of possible item effects of found items. If armor protects vs fire that should be its seperate property that is not given to all armors.

 

there is no reason to only balance armor with blanket DR. Why not let heavier metal armors have better vs physical DR but be vulnerable to lightning and fire? But be better vs acid. And so on.

Edited January 9, 2015 by archangel979

[Sensuki]

I don't think that having different DR's for different damage types is a problem, it just becomes difficult to balance or bring the damage ranges into reign when you're trying to use values that probably don't suit the system.

 

It seems like for the armor system and grazes to work and feel right, the system demands much larger damage and health numbers than are being currently used.

[archangel979]

My suggestion is about big spells first (daily ones) vs all powerful DR that protects vs all.

[PrimeJunta]

That has nothing to do with the minimum damage on a graze being like 2 and the maximum damage on a crit being like 85 for the same spell against the same DR.

 

You will also notice that I had high accuracy in those two screenies. The first one I just got real unlucky rolls vs 2 targets (single digit rolls), and the second I got four crits.

 

But but but. You're still comparing apples to oranges. In the IE games, those grazes would have been misses/saves, i.e. no damage at all. (Edit: Okay, fine, half damage on those spells where save = half damage.)

 

AD&D uses a completely different resolution mechanism for spells and weapon damage. P:E uses a unified resolution mechanism for all attacks. This is a side effect. The P:E mechanism is arguably better because it's (1) way more transparent, and (2) requires more thought to use, i.e. pick your attack based on the defense you want to attack, and use different spells and attacks in combination to work around defenses.

 

In other words, you're sounding a whole lot like somebody who was complaining about swingy damage in IWD before you gently pointed out that he needs a fighter with really good THAC0. :points at self:

Edited January 9, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[Sensuki]

But but but. You're still comparing apples to oranges. In the IE games, those grazes would have been misses/saves, i.e. no damage at all. (Edit: Okay, fine, half damage on those spells where save = half damage.)

Like I've said before, it does not matter. Damage is damage. The fact that PE uses a unified resolution mechanic and AD&D does not matter. I believe 'swingy' damage is not the intention of this system either.

 

You weren't complaining about swingy damage. You were complaining about missing, even though you worded it as 'swingy damage'.

 

----------

Here's a made up example

 

If Stamina was 1000 per character, and crits dealt in the range of 150 damage, hits dealt somewhere around 75 and grazes dealt around 25 damage, that's not so bad because the amount of damage a graze does is like 1/5th of a crit.

 

The difference between 2 and 85 is smaller than 1/40th. An 85 damage crit can kill characters in a single hit, as well.

 

Also before anyone comes in being captain obvious - Blizzard is OP atm, and I'm sure it will be nerfed.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

Missing means your damage range is 0 to maximum. If that's not swingy, I don't know what it is.'

 

Would you feel better about it if those grazes were actually 0's?