SLOWED RECOVERY WHILE MOVING - NO THANKS

[Sensuki]

I am pretty good at that

[Osvir]

I am 100% convinced that most people will play the game and not even notice what Sensuki et al. perceive to be catastrophic problems with movement.

 

You've filed your report (incredibly rudely, as usual), and you're going to mod the game to your liking. Fair enough. Given that, it really doesn't matter if anyone agrees with your position.

 

Move on.

It matters for Sensuki's mod. Why should he make it if everyone would be against it? *shrug* With that said I agree with your position, this thread reeks of "I THINK THIS THING SUCKS AND I CAN CHANGE IT BUT I THINK YOU SHOULD DO IT INSTEAD!".

 

Don't be insulted by the capital letters, I'm simply parroting the thread title.

[Sensuki]

Really because I'm pretty sure a fair few people have posted that they don't like it either. Or are you simply ignoring half the posters in the thread?

[Osvir]

Don't misunderstand, this thread is great feedback for your mod. It was a question to Flow.

Let me elaborate: Why should Sensuki include this feature into his mod if people were against his position on Slow Recovery Rate while moving? E.g. it matters to Sensuki's mod.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Osvir

[Sensuki]

Right, gotcha.

[Gfted1]

Wondering about peoples various mental deficiencies or bringing personal axes to grind do not promote discussion. Lets address the topic and not the posters, please.

[Shdy314]

 

 

That's why this is a pnp based system and not an action rpg. It certainly circumvents the bounds of AD&D.

Maybe if you spent more time fighting in virtual environments you'd know what you were talking about. PoE is not based on a pnp system though it certainly has a few DnD touchstones.

For example engagement is just attacks of opportunity in 3rd edition DnD and it is also impossible to take a move action and full attack(usually) in 3rd edition. Sound familiar?

It's certainly based on pnp combat abstraction principles.

 

Well aoo threat is completely different in that you could take aoos against anyone in your threat range instead of being limited by your engagement number. I actually prefer the PoE system because it's ludicrous to assume you can just whack whoever walks by you if your attention is on existing combatants.

 

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make about move + full attack. Please be more coherent?

 

And as for my virtual combat time...I know what you guys are talking about its how I know you want to exploit systems, not have a balanced game experience. Impassioned cognitive dissonance is still, ultimately, dissonant.

 

 

No actually youre limited in the amount of AoOs you can make. It's only once per turn without a feat that let's you do it equal to your dexterity modifier. Please know what you are talking about before you speak. So those are the engagement limits of 3e dnd and it's clones. But the designers were smart enough to realize that people wanted SOME movement to occur so they added the 5 foot step and the tumble skill.

 

I was very coherent but my mistake was assuming you knew anything about DnD which I shouldn't have. In DnD you cannot move and make more than one attack on your turn. So if you are a class (like fighters) that starts getting multiple attacks per turn you do not want to move. Players start doing things like get themselves permanently enlarged and wield a reach weapon so they can use their full attacks. OR they use archery Because movement penalizes them. It's a serious flaw in the system. It's even worse for classes like monks who get a lot of movement oriented abilities so they can run around the battlefield... except they don't want to do that cuz then they can't full attack.

 

You really couldn't be more wrong. This has nothing to do with exploitation. It's something that makes spells and ranged weapons even more powerful while making melee worse than it already is. What purpose do you think it is serving? What exploit is it closing?

[Sensuki]

Yeah I didn't like that about 3E either. In AD&D, from memory you could run 30 feet and then do 5 attacks per round. I think it was Anthony Davis who said he was mad that you couldn't do that in the Infinity Engine games though haha, because the rounds ticked down when you were moving.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Sensuki

[Flow]

Don't misunderstand, this thread is great feedback for your mod. It was a question to Flow.

 

Let me elaborate: Why should Sensuki include this feature into his mod if people were against his position on Slow Recovery Rate while moving? E.g. it matters to Sensuki's mod.

Sensuki has established fairly clearly his position on engagement mechanics and movement penalties. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the balance of opinion on this thread is not going to change his commitment to modding out the stuff he doesn't like

[erragal]

 

 

 

That's why this is a pnp based system and not an action rpg. It certainly circumvents the bounds of AD&D.

Maybe if you spent more time fighting in virtual environments you'd know what you were talking about. PoE is not based on a pnp system though it certainly has a few DnD touchstones.For example engagement is just attacks of opportunity in 3rd edition DnD and it is also impossible to take a move action and full attack(usually) in 3rd edition. Sound familiar?

It's certainly based on pnp combat abstraction principles.Well aoo threat is completely different in that you could take aoos against anyone in your threat range instead of being limited by your engagement number. I actually prefer the PoE system because it's ludicrous to assume you can just whack whoever walks by you if your attention is on existing combatants.I'm not sure the point you're trying to make about move + full attack. Please be more coherent?And as for my virtual combat time...I know what you guys are talking about its how I know you want to exploit systems, not have a balanced game experience. Impassioned cognitive dissonance is still, ultimately, dissonant.

No actually youre limited in the amount of AoOs you can make. It's only once per turn without a feat that let's you do it equal to your dexterity modifier. Please know what you are talking about before you speak. So those are the engagement limits of 3e dnd and it's clones. But the designers were smart enough to realize that people wanted SOME movement to occur so they added the 5 foot step and the tumble skill. I was very coherent but my mistake was assuming you knew anything about DnD which I shouldn't have. In DnD you cannot move and make more than one attack on your turn. So if you are a class (like fighters) that starts getting multiple attacks per turn you do not want to move. Players start doing things like get themselves permanently enlarged and wield a reach weapon so they can use their full attacks. OR they use archery Because movement penalizes them. It's a serious flaw in the system. It's even worse for classes like monks who get a lot of movement oriented abilities so they can run around the battlefield... except they don't want to do that cuz then they can't full attack. You really couldn't be more wrong. This has nothing to do with exploitation. It's something that makes spells and ranged weapons even more powerful while making melee worse than it already is. What purpose do you think it is serving? What exploit is it closing?

Nothing I said indicated you get infinite number of attacks without the combat reflexes feat, did it? I said whoever(or grammatically whomever). The issue I was bringing to light is that engagement and aoos are meant to represent that within a melee fight you cannot be occupied with everything around you and protect yourself.

 

Full attack after full movement was designed to create a decision

between tactical movement and offensive output;it's a decision that rewards properly planned position. What we call strategy.

 

 

Your other points still don't make any sense. I wasn't referring to exploits in 3.0\3.5 I'm referring to exploits in IE games from constant kiting. Things that the limited full attack option restricts.

 

As for the balance between casters and melee that has everything to do with the legacy of the dungeons and dragons system and an expectation for high level spells efficacy. Melee characters have power spikes in 3.5 from levels 8-14 where they can completely dominate the game.

 

You're also crazy, crazy wrong about my 3e experience. I was creating one shotting shield charging paladins, and reach weapon ceiling walking psychic warriors to circumvent those limits. This just isn't a discussion about 3e mechanics (which are fun for rules lawyers but bad for storytelling flow).

 

Edit: And movement should penalize melee fighting. That's because movement in a tactical simulation rpg is not micro, it's macro movement. Your micro is represented by your statistics.

Edited March 19, 2015 by erragal

[IndiraLightfoot]

I like this kind of movement penalty.

 

However, I find the movement talents and the effect of Dex, etc, far too lacking to have an impact on movement. Something needs to be done about that.

 

The most fun would be if PoE allowed you to make both stand-still specialists and fleet-footed masters in one and the same game. I'd love to see that kind of breadth to the mechanics.

[Luckmann]

There are movement-related abilities and talents, but using something like Wild Sprint after you've made an attack (which you know, is when you want to use it) forces you to stand still to wait until the ability goes off because it's pointless to move first with the recovery slow, because it will take ages to go off.

I'm going to quote this again for everyone that didn't understand it the first time.

 

I like this kind of movement penalty.

 

However, I find the movement talents and the effect of Dex, etc, far too lacking to have an impact on movement. Something needs to be done about that.

 

The most fun would be if PoE allowed you to make both stand-still specialists and fleet-footed masters in one and the same game. I'd love to see that kind of breadth to the mechanics.

If that's what you want, you do that best by promoting those two playstyles. Not by penalizing either of them into irrelevance. Especially if you want anything that is between those two extremes.

 

You shouldn't have to specialize just to move, just like you shouldn't have to specialize just to stand still. I'm very positive towards mechanics that promote either extreme, but penalizing either in it's most reasonable form just makes it so you'll have to. Which is crazy.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Luckmann

[Sensuki]

 

 

That's because movement in a tactical simulation rpg is not micro, it's macro movement. Your micro is represented by your statistics.

 

I will reply this time but this is completely incorrect. You are simply against player input.

[erragal]

If that's what you want, you do that best by promoting those two playstyles. Not by penalizing either of them into irrelevance. Especially if you want anything that is between those two extremes.You shouldn't have to specialize just to move, just like you shouldn't have to specialize just to stand still. I'm very positive towards mechanics that promote either extreme, but penalizing either in it's most reasonable form just makes it so you'll have to. Which is crazy.

The issue is fundamentally what moving your character represents in a squad based tactical simulation versus what you want it to represent.

 

It's not that you have to specialize in moving to be good at moving. It's that moving and doing something else at the same time is a skill in and of itself. Moving your character doesn't represent ' dodging an arrow ' or ' avoiding a fireball '. It represents your character repositioning wholesale several yards in order to have a new tactical position.

 

If you are making that decision what it means is your original position is untenable. If you pick your original positions better then you shouldn't have to move as often.

 

Introducing a penalty on your damage output when you move creates an incentive to pick your position carefully.

 

The playstyles you want them to enable don't make logical sense. Think about what you want them to actually represent for a moment. Visualize what a guy with a two handed sword running backwards swinging it full speed whole never stopping to plant his feet or aim actually would look like. All the while somehow never actually getting in range to be hit himself.

 

This is why kiting in games like this while you may enjoy it from a visceral playstyles perspective are things they're trying to excise. It's a wholly illogical conceptual idea.

[Shdy314]

Nothing I said indicated you get infinite number of attacks without the combat reflexes feat, did it? I said whoever(or grammatically whomever). The issue I was bringing to light is that engagement and aoos are meant to represent that within a melee fight you cannot be occupied with everything around you and protect yourself.

Full attack after full movement was designed to create a decision

between tactical movement and offensive output;it's a decision that rewards properly planned position. What we call strategy.

 

 

Your other points still don't make any sense. I wasn't referring to exploits in 3.0\3.5 I'm referring to exploits in IE games from constant kiting. Things that the limited full attack option restricts.

 

As for the balance between casters and melee that has everything to do with the legacy of the dungeons and dragons system and an expectation for high level spells efficacy. Melee characters have power spikes in 3.5 from levels 8-14 where they can completely dominate the game.

 

You're also crazy, crazy wrong about my 3e experience. I was creating one shotting shield charging paladins, and reach weapon ceiling walking psychic warriors to circumvent those limits. This just isn't a discussion about 3e mechanics (which are fun for rules lawyers but bad for storytelling flow).

 

Edit: And movement should penalize melee fighting. That's because movement in a tactical simulation rpg is not micro, it's macro movement. Your micro is represented by your statistics.

 

Yes you did indicate that because you said you could get aoos (s means plural). So if you want to have a meaningless semantic argument you should have said AN AoO.

You aren't bringing some sort of incredible revelation to light about AoO's and Engagement. I already brought up it's purpose in my first post in this thread where I said the exact same thing.

 

Inability to full attack after movement wasn't to create decisions it was a screw up by the designers. One of many. I am not bringing up 3.0/.5 etc. because it's a great system. Quite the opposite. 

 

I did not list every single way players came up with to circumvent the movement penalties. I already mentioned using reach weapons and yes charging is another way. Thanks for proving my point. The players response to penalizing movement is finding a way to circumvent those penalties. They didn't revel in the "tactical decision making this created" anymore than you yourself did. Please keep agreeing with me. Of course the absolute easiest way was to just use archery or spells. We see the same effect in PoE.

 

I don't have time to explain how wrong you are. Melee people don't dominate the 3.X at any level. There are whole essays on this stuff but that's irrelevant. What's relevant are the similarities between the two systems vis a vis movement and melee and the player's responses to them.

 

Why should movement penalize melee fighting? Because realizarm? Bad reason. This isn't a simulationist game. Players need real reasons to prefer a melee weapon. If we go by realism everyone would be using pirate style but they took that bug out of the game.

 

EDIT: I am also aware you were not referring to 3.X exploits. This movement speed penalty does NOT stop kiting! You yourself have admitted this punishes MELEE more.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Shdy314

[Sensuki]

Or - instead of trying to simulate realism (and I don't think a penalty to recovery while moving is realistic - ever heard of charging?), you could instead make decisions that create good gameplay - like not penalizing recovery while moving.

 

In realistic melee combat - combatants move around quite a bit, usually circling though.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Sensuki

[erragal]

 

That's because movement in a tactical simulation rpg is not micro, it's macro movement. Your micro is represented by your statistics.

 

I will reply this time but this is completely incorrect. You are simply against player input.

Saying something is incorrect does not make it so. Holding your ears and yelling lalala will not make the other ideas dissappear.

 

This goes back to the roots of pnp combat design. You aren't representing everything on a one to one basis. Why have reflex saves for damage spells if that isn't your characters natural ability to roll out of the way. Micro.

 

Macro is you anticipate where the enemy caster is aiming for and you move prior to his spell animation completes. Scatter your party strategically (player input) you begin your abilities from your new position while his is wasted. This is macro movement.

 

Player input is all over the place. Trying to reframe the argument doesn't make it go away. Microing a character so he never has to make any statistical combat rolls on defense while consistently making offensive combat rolls is using a macro movement systems to circumvent gameplay and create a rudimentary micro system.

 

It would make sense if that was the way the game was designed. However the existence of engagement (A fact that exists in this game. Non negotiable at this stage) informs us what philosophy has been taken. Attempting to say it's an incorrect philosophy is too late....why not accept what this game is and try to work within the given framework to improve implementation.

 

Railing against reality may help you feel better but it's wasted energy.

[erragal]

Or - instead of trying to simulate realism (and I don't think a penalty to recovery while moving is realistic - ever heard of charging?), you could instead make decisions that create good gameplay - like not penalizing recovery while moving.

 

In realistic melee combat - combatants move around quite a bit, usually circling though.

Yeah and I've repeatedly mentioned how this is represented statistically. Why don't you like numerical representation of combat factors? Do you still not understand what abstraction is?

[Shevek]

Some penalty to movement is fine, I think. There just needs to be more ways to offset that through CharGen. Maybe have Athletics Skill or the Con stat reduce the penalty somewhat (In addition to talents). The more we can have character development choices impact this stuff, the better. Also, maybe moving in heavier armor could lead to a larger penalty than smaller armors. This kind of thing can make character development more interesting.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Shevek

[DigitalCrack]

I really don't understand why people would care if you have more tactical choices in combat than less. Doubling up on penalties for movement doesn't add to your pool of tactical choices it takes away from them, which is good how? And if it doesn't bother you that you can't move much then why does it matter to you if someone else wants to be able to? The removal of the recovery penalty doesn't affect how you wanna play anyway so why argue agaisnt it?

 

Would you not react the same way if mechanics were put in place to purposely limit the way you wish to play the game? Of course anyone would.

[erragal]

 

Nothing I said indicated you get infinite number of attacks without the combat reflexes feat, did it? I said whoever(or grammatically whomever). The issue I was bringing to light is that engagement and aoos are meant to represent that within a melee fight you cannot be occupied with everything around you and protect yourself.

 

Full attack after full movement was designed to create a decision

between tactical movement and offensive output;it's a decision that rewards properly planned position. What we call strategy.

Your other points still don't make any sense. I wasn't referring to exploits in 3.0\3.5 I'm referring to exploits in IE games from constant kiting. Things that the limited full attack option restricts.

As for the balance between casters and melee that has everything to do with the legacy of the dungeons and dragons system and an expectation for high level spells efficacy. Melee characters have power spikes in 3.5 from levels 8-14 where they can completely dominate the game.

You're also crazy, crazy wrong about my 3e experience. I was creating one shotting shield charging paladins, and reach weapon ceiling walking psychic warriors to circumvent those limits. This just isn't a discussion about 3e mechanics (which are fun for rules lawyers but bad for storytelling flow).

Edit: And movement should penalize melee fighting. That's because movement in a tactical simulation rpg is not micro, it's macro movement. Your micro is represented by your statistics.

 

Yes you did indicate that because you said you could get aoos (s means plural). So if you want to have a meaningless semantic argument you should have said AN AoO.

You aren't bringing some sort of incredible revelation to light about AoO's and Engagement. I already brought up it's purpose in my first post in this thread where I said the exact same thing.

 

Inability to full attack after movement wasn't to create decisions it was a screw up by the designers. One of many. I am not bringing up 3.0/.5 etc. because it's a great system. Quite the opposite. 

 

I did not list every single way players came up with to circumvent the movement penalties. I already mentioned using reach weapons and yes charging is another way. Thanks for proving my point. The players response to penalizing movement is finding a way to circumvent those penalties. They didn't revel in the "tactical decision making this created" anymore than you yourself did. Please keep agreeing with me. Of course the absolute easiest way was to just use archery or spells. We see the same effect in PoE.

 

I don't have time to explain how wrong you are. Melee people don't dominate the 3.X at any level. There are whole essays on this stuff but that's irrelevant. What's relevant are the similarities between the two systems vis a vis movement and melee and the player's responses to them.

 

Why should movement penalize melee fighting? Because realizarm? Bad reason. This isn't a simulationist game. Players need real reasons to prefer a melee weapon. If we go by realism everyone would be using pirate style but they took that bug out of the game.

 

EDIT: I am also aware you were not referring to 3.X exploits. This movement speed penalty does NOT stop kiting! You yourself have admitted this punishes MELEE more.

It's not a movement speed penalty, it's a recovery penalty which applies to all characters equally. It's not targeted at anyone.

 

Also PoE does not have the raw caster imbalance disparity of 3e so no incentive for melee needs to be given.

 

I still can't parse your argument from the other stuff you said. Melee people could, at one point, output more raw damage with more safety at certain level breakpoints in 3e. Most people just had nice gms that were afraid to punish the casters fragile egos.

[Shdy314]

Some penalty to movement is fine, I think.

Yes and that penalty is called engagement and there are ways to mitigate it. Not great ways generally but ways. Adding another is a bad idea.

[Shevek]

Tactically, would Chess be better with nothing but Queens?

[erragal]

I really don't understand why people would care if you have more tactical choices in combat than less. Doubling up on penalties for movement doesn't add to your pool of tactical choices it takes away from them, which is good how? And if it doesn't bother you that you can't move much then why does it matter to you if someone else wants to be able to? The removal of the recovery penalty doesn't affect how you wanna play anyway so why argue agaisnt it?

Would you not react the same way if mechanics were put in place to purposely limit the way you wish to play the game? Of course anyone would.

For me the absence of options punishing excessive running create an optimal way to play that doesn't represent any sort of a fantasy combat scenario.

 

I love the idea of a hyper mobile character being enabled by a series of choices. This makes it a playstyle for those interested while properly representing how superheric it is to actually fight that way.

[Sensuki]

Slowed movement recovery is not tactical though. Adding in arbitrary talents to compensate for penalties from bad systems isn't going to improve the moment to moment gameplay - which is what this is about.

 

 

 

I love the idea of a hyper mobile character being enabled by a series of choices.

 

erragal I don't think you've actually played the game.

This is the case through ability and talent selection. Slowed movement recovery does not add to or take away from this point.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Sensuki