IE Veteran's feedback

[Althernai]

Given the nature and number of spells in IE games, together with the easy availability of rest, this was a false trade-off in virtually all cases. It was far more problematic.

Sort of. Resting did not help with the loss of spells due to buffs because few of them lasted long enough to persist post-rest so you would just end up casting them again -- this was in fact one of the disincentives for resting. PoE goes to the other extreme: resting is very restricted and you have few spells and the opportunity cost is high.

[Killyox]

Prebuffing was one of the worst things in IE games. 

[Killyox]

 

Every time I case a fireball, the fireball doesn't really deal enough damage to spend the time trying to position Aloth accordingly.

Fireball is weirdly weak (and pointless) in this game.

 

Fan of Flames, a level one spell, deals 40-55 base damage.

Fireball, a level THREE spell, deals only 25-35 base damage.

 

I really don't know why you would ever use Fireball when Noxious Burst exists. It's also a level three spell, but deals more damage AND sickens anyone caught in the blast.

 

Because Fireball targets Reflex and Noxious Burst targets Fortitude. Use spells that target opponents weakest defense. GL with Noxious on enemies with 80-90 Fortitude.

 

For example. Trolls have weak DR to Fire, weak Reflex and high Fortitude. Fireball vs Noxious, Fireball wins here by a long shot.

 

Xaurip have good Fire DR, weak Fortitude and quite high Reflex. Obvious winner here is Noxious. Use what is best against enemy you are fighting against.

 

 

 

Given the nature and number of spells in IE games, together with the easy availability of rest, this was a false trade-off in virtually all cases. It was far more problematic.

Sort of. Resting did not help with the loss of spells due to buffs because few of them lasted long enough to persist post-rest so you would just end up casting them again -- this was in fact one of the disincentives for resting. PoE goes to the other extreme: resting is very restricted and you have few spells and the opportunity cost is high.

 

 

Thus far I rest very rarely. Often finding more supplies while I am already capped 2/2. Very often my mage has still ~40% of his spells (same with priest) when I rest because party has Major Fatigue. Thus far the spell that sees the most use for my mage is AoE Blindness.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Killyox

[dirigible]

Because Fireball targets Reflex and Noxious Burst targets Fortitude. Use spells that target opponents weakest defense. GL with Noxious on enemies with 80-90 Fortitude.

 

For example. Trolls have weak DR to Fire, weak Reflex and high Fortitude. Fireball vs Noxious, Fireball wins here by a long shot.

 

Xaurip have good Fire DR, weak Fortitude and quite high Reflex. Obvious winner here is Noxious. Use what is best against enemy you are fighting against.

Trolls are an exception, in this game. They have one defense (Fortitude) which is extremely high, while all the others are low. MOST enemies in the game aren't like this. Meaning that for MOST enemies in the game, Noxious Burst is simply a much better version of Fireball.

Unless I were walking into a Troll-themed dungeon, I wouldn't even bother altering my spellbook.

 

Not to mention that Fan of Flames also targets Reflex and deals fire damage, but also deals MORE damage and over a bigger area.

Edited March 30, 2015 by dirigible

[Ink Blot]

also, I have no idea what it means by "Of" for enchants...

I believe it's actually intended as an extension of the item name: Golden Ring 'Of Deflection'. At least, that's the only sense I can make of it. Maybe they're randomly generated?

[Dark_Ansem]

OP, maybe the game is less complex, in terms of mechanics.

But, on the other hand, think of this as having more time to master it. and if not, there can be ways to make it more complex.

[Tigranes]

I love the IE games and still play them today.

 

I also like what they've done here and hope they continue to improve it in expansion packs and sequels.

 

I do with there were more per-rest and less per-encounter abilities. That would make camping supplies more meaningful and interesting. 

[Killyox]

 

Because Fireball targets Reflex and Noxious Burst targets Fortitude. Use spells that target opponents weakest defense. GL with Noxious on enemies with 80-90 Fortitude.

 

For example. Trolls have weak DR to Fire, weak Reflex and high Fortitude. Fireball vs Noxious, Fireball wins here by a long shot.

 

Xaurip have good Fire DR, weak Fortitude and quite high Reflex. Obvious winner here is Noxious. Use what is best against enemy you are fighting against.

Trolls are an exception, in this game. They have one defense (Fortitude) which is extremely high, while all the others are low. MOST enemies in the game aren't like this. Meaning that for MOST enemies in the game, Noxious Burst is simply a much better version of Fireball.

Unless I were walking into a Troll-themed dungeon, I wouldn't even bother altering my spellbook.

 

Not to mention that Fan of Flames also targets Reflex and deals fire damage, but also deals MORE damage and over a bigger area.

 

Untrue. Source: Bestiary & Combat Log.

 

Add in the fact that different spells can reduce different stats. Mushroom monsters have very very low Deflection for example. Trolls are not an exception.

 

For example it's far easier for my Cipher to AoE reduce reflex with Mental Binding and follow up with Fireball from Aloth than it is with Fortitude and Noxious Blast.

 

Ogre Matron

Def 61 Fort 84 Ref 58 Will 62

 

Forest Troll

Def 31 Fort 66 Ref 26 Will 13

 

Dank Spore

Def 19 Fort 61 Ref 20 Will 35

 

Flame Blight

Def 42 Fort 43 Ref 61 Will 34

 

Phantom 

Def 60 Fort 45 Ref 61 Will 64

 

 

So as you can see there are many monsters that have certain defenses a lot lower than others and that is not limited to Reflex and Fortitude but Deflection and Will as well. So point stands. You would use Fireball instead of Noxious Blast where it's better. and 10-20 pts difference in stats is HUGE. it's like bonus accuracy to hit/crit instead of miss/graze.

 

In case of Dank Spore with my Cipher I prefer Mind Blades to anything else because of how easy it is to crit with it (MB attacks deflection) On trolls Fireball with my mage etc.

 

Fan of Flames vs Fireball

 

Fireball's speed is "Fast" vs "average" of FoF (Noxious Blast is also "Average" speed). 

Fireball has 10m range + 2,5m radius base (3,74m for my aloth) vs melee range + 5m base cone. It's pretty much depending on which you need more. Fireball is a lot easier to place than FoF.

 

I myself like the fact that just because I can now use Fireball it does not make FoF useless which happened in IE games where low lvl spells became useless in most part.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Killyox

[Eurhetemec]

OP, maybe the game is less complex, in terms of mechanics.

But, on the other hand, think of this as having more time to master it. and if not, there can be ways to make it more complex.

 

Define "complex".

 

Pillars of Eternity's actual mechanics are, themselves, more complex and detailed than those in 2E AD&D, with more possible outcomes in most cases, and more granular modifiers (which come from more sources, in many cases). Magic items are typically more complex in effect, for example.

 

However, they are, like most modern design, consistent and rational. So despite being complex, they're relatively easy to understand.

 

Whereas AD&D 2E had, in many cases, very simple and limited actual rules (hit/miss, save/don't save), but the values were wildly arbitrary (on ability scores, saves, spells, etc.), and were not (and I say this as someone who DM'd AD&D 2E for it's entire existence) well-considered or well-balanced. Some spells or abilities worked in ways entirely inconsistent with the rest, often in a deeply unbalanced way (making them wildly more/less powerful than others). It made for "interesting times", and was sometimes very fun (esp. if you were focusing on a wizard as your "main" character), but it wasn't the "good" kind of complexity, imho, or at least was mostly not the good kind (there was some of that).

[dirigible]

 

Trolls are an exception, in this game. They have one defense (Fortitude) which is extremely high, while all the others are low. MOST enemies in the game aren't like this. Meaning that for MOST enemies in the game, Noxious Burst is simply a much better version of Fireball.

Unless I were walking into a Troll-themed dungeon, I wouldn't even bother altering my spellbook.

 

Not to mention that Fan of Flames also targets Reflex and deals fire damage, but also deals MORE damage and over a bigger area.

 

Untrue. Source: Bestiary & Combat Log.

 

Add in the fact that different spells can reduce different stats. Mushroom monsters have very very low Deflection for example. Trolls are not an exception.

 

For example it's far easier for my Cipher to AoE reduce reflex with Mental Binding and follow up with Fireball from Aloth than it is with Fortitude and Noxious Blast.

 

Just picking out 5 random monsters from the Bestiary, and their defenses

 

Black Ooze

29, 39, 29, 51

Rain Blight

40, 47, 55, 34

Specter

75, 55, 69, 78

Forest Troll

31, 66, 26, 13

Will'o'whisp

58, 17, 48, 48

 

So the first three are perfect examples of what I'm talking about. None of their defenses are particularly good or bad. Their highest defense is within ~20 points of their lowest defense. Not enough for me to want to switch spellbooks.

The last two are kind of opposites. Forest Trolls have 1 exceptionally good defense (fort), while Whisps have one exceptionally bad defense (also fort). If I were fighting a lot of trolls, or a lot of whisps then I would alter my spellbook, but you typically only fight them intermittently.

 

Then you can look at the creatures which are fought most often.

Guls, Darguls, Skeletons (of all types), Wichts, Shades, Specters... you fight a lot of these enemies. And none of them have particularly stellar (or poor) defenses.

[GreyFox]

Yea the combat mechanics are bad and it's hard to even truly judge combat atm more than likely since there are some pretty big bugs out there affecting things.

 

It's not nearly as good as the IE games but I hope it's success can bring us another type of game like this where JE isn't the lead...he can keep PE but I hope we get a Pathfinder cRPG led by someone else.

[Monte Carlo]

What have people found playing parties with four or less characters? I played most of the IE games on core rules with smaller parties and enjoyed the challenge, which given the way IE combat played out, was do-able.

 

Does POE demand bigger parties due to the homing in on spell-casters and lack of kiting / disengagement penalties. Like I say, most of my experience has been low level in the release version and playing the Beta.

[Tigranes]

I'm playing with 4 parties because I want to learn those classes first and because the game was getting too easy. 4 works quite well, I think 3 would also be interesting, 2 might be hard. But then, I also go with smaller parties playing IE these days. 

[Gorth]

I dont think there is a combat system that is "the best thing ever".

X-Com 3: Apocalypse and Jagged Alliance 2 are two serious contenders for that title

[Jimmious]

 

I dont think there is a combat system that is "the best thing ever".

X-Com 3: Apocalypse and Jagged Alliance 2 are two serious contenders for that title

 

 

Hah OK I admit I agree with JA2 but that's preference I guess!

[archangel979]

I agree with most of OP but I like limited resting. Resting anywhere was too abusable in BG games and it become worse with NWN 1 and NWN2 where you could not even get attacked while resting.

 

Also BG2 and later NWN games had excessive prebuffing. I want to have long lasting spells but I want it limited somewhat. D&D 5e does it well, you can only have one major buff per caster and all casters don't have lots and lots of spell slots so you cannot just waste all of them on buffs before combat.

 

Engagement as it is currently is pretty bad. It is a good idea but not done well in practice.

[Althernai]

Looking at the wizard self-target buffs, yes and no.

 

Some of them (eldritch aim, deleterious alacrity) can be quite good in major fights. +15 accuracy to all your spellcasting can be a huge difference when you're throwing out AoEs.

Some of them (flame shield, stone skin) seem pretty pointless unless you're using your wizard as your main tank. Which just from looking at the wizard spells actually seems pretty do-able, but it means those spells are worthless if you're using your wizard like back-lines artillery.

Eldritch Aim is basically the reason I said "most" rather than "all" -- but even that one is not as good as it sounds because the base duration is only 10 seconds so even with a significant boost from INT, it will only influence 1-3 spells depending on the spells and the need to properly position the Wizard and enemies. I haven't gotten to Deleterious Alacrity yet (only level 4), but from the description in the manual, it doesn't sound that promising: short duration, inflicts damage on self, Movement increase is not very useful since everyone is already quite fast (the problem is avoiding Engagement). I guess it depends on how much Speed is increased.

 

I don't see how using a Wizard as your main tank would be anywhere close to a decent strategy. First, you will again suffer from the fact that you can't pre-buff: the enemies will hammer you while you're buffing and, given that Wizards have Very Low or Low combat stats across the board, probably knock you out before you've had a chance to fully buff (bonus: they can also interrupt your spells!). Second, the number of spells you can cast is limited so even if you did manage to buff, you'd be able to pull this off for a grand total of about 5 encounters before needing to rest. Compare this to, say, a Fighter, who not only has naturally higher Endurance, Health and base defenses, but can get a combat mode with +10 to defenses across the board (good luck getting that kind of bonus out of your buffs and talents).

[Anelor]

IMHO I enjoyed BG 1 and BG 2, but i find prebuffing not tactical at all, as someone already pointed out. It is more a way to make easier the game for the player, at detriment of tactics, that is the use or limited resources in a complex environment, without the capacity to use them in anticipation of a imminent battle. In short, prebuffing is childish stuff. POE has done the right thing implementing abilities and spells partly restraint to combat situations.

[Gromnir]

To the OP - one word. Sawyer. 

josh is visible because he posts and responds to posts, but you give him far too much credit.  poe combat has cain fingerprints all over it, and we suspect there is many obsidians who who justifiably bristle at the notion that sawyer were The Guy.

 

*shrug*

 

bg combat sucked.  is a rose-hued glasses recollection.  ps:t combat mighta been worse.  those were ie games too. you give folks the same low-level d&d combat experience we saw in bg and we could expect more than a few justified howls o' derision and anguish.  bg2 combat were far better than bg.  after numerous ie game iterations, bg2 were actually having some compelling combat, albeit broken in many ways.  there were no good reason to play a vanilla thief in bg2.  the number o' bg2 insta-kill exploits were excessive... and that actual worked both ways-- one failed save resulted in game over? gear fully invalidated ability scores relative early in the game. etc.

 

poe is game 1 in a new ip.  the developers might have an excuse if their combat sophistication were comparable to the woeful example o' rtwp squad-based tactical combat we saw in bg.  thankfully, poe ain't having near as horrible combat and character development as we saw in bg.  what choices did we make after level 1 in bg?  weapon proficiencies?  and heck, the proficiencies were pretty damn broad too.  there is considerable rebalancing and bug fixing that need be done, but we got an isometric, squad-based, rtwp combat in a fantasy game that uses many familiar features from the ie games.  is very much like bg, but not quite as bad.  poe is arguably not as deep or broad as bg2 or iwd2 for combat, not yet, but again, this is the first game o' a new system.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[dirigible]

I haven't gotten to Deleterious Alacrity yet (only level 4), but from the description in the manual, it doesn't sound that promising: short duration, inflicts damage on self, Movement increase is not very useful since everyone is already quite fast (the problem is avoiding Engagement). I guess it depends on how much Speed is increased.

Well, the main thing is the 50% increase in Attack Speed (which, unless I'm mistaken, also applies to casting speed).

 

I don't see how using a Wizard as your main tank would be anywhere close to a decent strategy. First, you will again suffer from the fact that you can't pre-buff: the enemies will hammer you while you're buffing and, given that Wizards have Very Low or Low combat stats across the board, probably knock you out before you've had a chance to fully buff (bonus: they can also interrupt your spells!). Second, the number of spells you can cast is limited so even if you did manage to buff, you'd be able to pull this off for a grand total of about 5 encounters before needing to rest. Compare this to, say, a Fighter, who not only has naturally higher Endurance, Health and base defenses, but can get a combat mode with +10 to defenses across the board (good luck getting that kind of bonus out of your buffs and talents).

Yeah, I have to agree. Any build which forces you to rest every 5 fights is pretty bad.

 

Still, at least Spirit Shield would help them not get interrupted. +30 Concentration.

[benbe123]

If engagement wasn't in this game, then every character not built to tank, would die very very quickly.

Anyone wanting engagement removed is being a tad bit silly.

[broknight]

            Combat is tactical in this game?? Sorry but I feel the enemies just try to bum rush your squishier party mates and proceed from there. Engagment sounds interesting on paper but really its not  especially when the game subverts this by using teleporting enemies to end up next to the spellcasters and use stamina drain/stun and the like to lay out the target.  Imho a lot of the brokenness and discovering exploits/op combos in the older IE games were what made them fun, balancing diminshes the rock paper, shotgun aspect of the metagame for me.  

           The balance in the game feels weird. Wizards/rogues can wear heavy armor, same weapons as fighers etc. It makes the classes watered down and sorta samey except for the skills.  Being a squishy was the tradeoff to being able to pre-buff and cast spells for caster types. To pre-buff or not all should be an option rather than forced same as limited camping.

[archangel979]

Combat is tactical in this game?? Sorry but I feel the enemies just try to bum rush your squishier party mates and proceed from there. Engagment sounds interesting on paper but really its not  especially when the game subverts this by using teleporting enemies to end up next to the spellcasters and use stamina drain/stun and the like to lay out the target.  Imho a lot of the brokenness and discovering exploits/op combos in the older IE games were what made them fun, balancing diminshes the rock paper, shotgun aspect of the metagame for me.  

           The balance in the game feels weird. Wizards/rogues can wear heavy armor, same weapons as fighers etc. It makes the classes watered down and sorta samey except for the skills.  Being a squishy was the tradeoff to being able to pre-buff and cast spells for caster types. To pre-buff or not all should be an option rather than forced same as limited camping.

After 25h of playing I only found Shadows and Shade that teleport.

[TheisEjsing]

Fampyrs ignore your front wall and go for your squishies in the back. That is annoying as hell, but provides a better combat. I kinda like how stupid enemies (low int) do stupid things, and are easy to predict, where clever enemies, use other tactics.

 

It's not very sophisticated at the moment, but like Gromnir said, it's the first game. I like the concept behind PoE's mechanics much more than the D&D one in the IE games. Come PoE 2, it should easily surpass BG 2 combat. 

[broknight]

Every encounter is the same. Its boring. I like replaying fights to test out different stuff. Here its mostly put tanker/melee to block where needed, priest/caster buff on party/ self , focus fire desired target while debilitate minions. I miss roasting the enemy alive from afar/sending insect plague/traps to soften up opponents. Also why is the writing so ..I dont know.. humorless not on par with their other stuff.

 

Fampyrs ignore your front wall and go for your squishies in the back. That is annoying as hell, but provides a better combat. I kinda like how stupid enemies (low int) do stupid things, and are easy to predict, where clever enemies, use other tactics.

 

It's not very sophisticated at the moment, but like Gromnir said, it's the first game. I like the concept behind PoE's mechanics much more than the D&D one in the IE games. Come PoE 2, it should easily surpass BG 2 combat. 

    That's very very speculative. Obsidian has yet to deliver a really well put together game. This is coming from someone who has purchased the older games from Black Isle, even the Troika games. I also bought Alpha Protocol/Sith Lords and New Vegas. New Vegas is their best game imho. I would strongly suggest they focus on doing a couple of things very well rather than trying to slap together a lot of cool on paper concepts like what happened in AP/MOTB.  Also the AI is stupid period. Characters just stand around sometimes after enemies disengage or just do nothing while getting beaten up.