No immunities

[Sleazebag]

Damn casuals, invading mah CRPG. I want tactical choices, like using an ice spell against a fire elemental. What do you mean that's some Mario ****? It's tactical, I'm a damn tactical genius, no casual **** for me. 

 

Now BG2, that was a tactical game. I mean, I beat it as a solo monk by just right clicking on stuff, but man, was it ever tactical. Tactical. Casuals. Dumbing down. Poop. 

[brionkj]

While I'm all for introducing some form of "Immunity" (ie High DR), I think the game devs have to very careful with it. I don't want it to end up gimping certain classes like Rogues vs Undead in NWN2. They'd certainly have to rebalance the enemies across the whole game.

I'm not holding my breath for an official rules change, so perhaps a fan mod?

[Stun]

Now BG2, that was a tactical game. I mean, I beat it as a solo monk by just right clicking on stuff

No you didn't. Monk fists alone will not see you beating BG2....on any difficulty.

 

And your arguments on this thread are neither relevant nor funny.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Stun

[Sleazebag]

 

Now BG2, that was a tactical game. I mean, I beat it as a solo monk by just right clicking on stuff

No you didn't. Monk fists alone will not see you beating BG2....on any difficulty.

 

And your arguments on this thread are neither relevant nor funny.

 

I actually did beat it, though I did use stunning fist and whatever the instakill punch was called. It was really easy. 

 

Much like your "casual" argument is not relevant either? I'm not really trying to be funny here, as much as mocking the fact that you actually think that there's some casual conspiracy at hand that is out to get you and your vidya gaemz.

[Stun]

I actually did beat it, though I did use stunning fist and whatever the instakill punch was called. It was really easy.

Aah, so immediately, we go from the retarded straw man of "all you need to do is auto attack, yo!!" to... "well, ok, I figured out the best times to activate my limited-use stunning attacks and my once-per-day quivering palm.".

 

I'm sure with a little push, we can get you to back track even more. You also used the right potions at the right times, didn't you. You probably spammed your HLA's when you got them (which is relatively early on if you're soloing) You probably made use of the assorted protection scrolls when you felt you needed to, not to mention a few of those "soloer-designed" magic items the game gives you (like figurines, Rings of invisibility, or that helmet that lets you make a Simulacrum of yourself, or the Book of infinite spells, or Celestial Fury) And, as anyone who's ever actually soloed BG2 will tell you, you probably also spent a lot of time trying to figure out ways to strategically bypass the game's traps (can't do that by just right clicking!) And traps in the BG games don't just knock you out. They can, you know, kill you outright. And we can't forget those situations when you came up against an enemy that required a +4 or better weapon to hit (unless you skipped Kangaxx, and all of Throne of Bhaal)

 

Like I said. You're not being relevant. Just insulting. BG2 was a tactical masterpiece.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

It's the same as the new age way of thinking with kids participating. You don't lose because you're special. Here, have a ribbon, medal or trophy. We don't keep score on who wins or loses. It's the same with this system. You pretty much can't miss with a spell and the same with a spell hitting you, and even if It was a miss in the IE games, it's a graze in this game which is still a hit. So with blinding enemies with no eyes, prone an enemy who's already on the ground or anything else, you still hit. Don't you feel special now?

[dirigible]

^^^ And in case no one's connected the dots yet, this is exactly the definition of "dumbing down". The "Everything works on everything so don't worry about your combat options!" may sound great on paper, but in application it ends up making encounters less tactical. We already see people complaining that combat in this game is boring because every encounter can be successfully won exactly the same way. Well? That's what happens when enemies lack immunities.

Dude, people are complaining about literally everything.

 

And yet the poll asking people if they liked the game? Overwhelmingly, people love the game.

[Caerdon]

I agree that the game should have immunities, but those should be used sparingly, when there's a really good reason for it, not simply to spice things up.

 

Specific defences, on the other hand, could be bumped up quite a lot in many, many cases. That'd force players to pay a bit more attention to which defence they're attacking, and it'd make it more exciting facing new enemy types and discovering information on them.

 

That said, I don't think we're quite on the level of "everything works on everything so don't worry about your combat options". That's true to a degree, but paying attention to defences is still worthwhile and beneficial.

 

Nah. That is silly. Some things should just be outright immune to things. And, while ogres should be hard to knockdown they shouldn't be any more resistant to poison than, say, a dwarf. (poisons use fortitude right?). And, if you are gonna go that high might as well make it total immunity.

 

"The dose makes the poison."

 

Assuming there are not special immunities in play, an ogre should definitely be more resistant to poison than a dwarf. Just like a rhinoceros is more resistant than a sheep.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Caerdon

[Sleazebag]

 

Aah, so immediately, we go from the retarded straw man of "all you need to do is auto attack, yo!!" to... "well, ok, I figured out the best times to use my limited-use stunning attacks and my once-per-day quivering palm.".

 

I'm sure with a little push, we can get you to back track even more. You also used the right potions at the right times, didn't you. You probably made use of the assorted protection scrolls when you felt you needed to, not to mention a few of those "soloer-designed" magic items the game gives you (like figurines, Rings of invisibility, or that helmet that lets you make a Simulacrum of yourself, or the Book of infinite spells, or Celestial Fury) And, as anyone who's ever actually soloed BG2 will tell you, you probably also spent a lot of time trying to figure out ways to strategically bypass the game's traps (can't do that by just right clicking!), and we can't forget those situations when you came up against an enemy that required a +4 or better weapon to hit (unless you skipped Kangaxx, and all of Throne of Bhaal)

 

Like I said. You're not being relevant. Just insulting. BG2 was a tactical masterpiece.

 

I was mostly exaggerating, and speaking out of quick memory since that run was mostly autoattacking for me.

 

I think I just beat BG2 with that monk, it was before the release of TOB, inspired by some topic in the Sorcerer's place? forums that was all about some people soloing the game with monk. I didn't use Celestial Fury, since I think one of the points in that thread was to prove how broken unarmed was? And I didn't use Vhailor's Helm, because I remember learning about the bonus merchants pretty late(collector's edition needed I think? and afterwards some mod added them in?). Didn't use the book either. 

 

Also didn't do Kangaxx, I think I did mostly a quick run through the game. And I think my strategy for most traps was just running through them and then resting afterwards, can't remember how I got through the instakill traps since this was years and years ago.

 

Most of the time, it was auto-attacking. Only bosses really needed the stunning blow and palm, and some of them didn't need it either. The complex tactics of potions was "I'm hurt, I'll drink a healing potion" and "this boss is a bit tough, guess I'll drink a giant's strength potion".

[DocDoomII]

Personally I don't like immunity for the sake of immunities (like Diablo 2).

But certain things should at least follow a bit of logic.

 

Things made of fire shouldn't get fire damage.

Things without blood shouldn't bleed.

Things without eyes shouldn't get blinded.

[dirigible]

I think Divinity: Original Sin actually did a very good job with this.

Cast fireball on a fire elemental? Congratulations, you just healed the fire elemental.

 

They established strong internal rules about what is immune to what, and how different elements interact. As an example, fire causes poison clouds to explode. When you hit a zombie, poison comes out. What happens when you set a zombie on fire? An exploding zombie.

 

Everything in the game was designed to be simultaneously obvious and thought provoking. Skeletons are highly resistant to piercing damage. Well duh, they're just bones. But on the flip side, they're highly susceptible to crushing damage.

[Caerdon]

Everything in the game was designed to be simultaneously obvious and thought provoking. Skeletons are highly resistant to piercing damage. Well duh, they're just bones. But on the flip side, they're highly susceptible to crushing damage.

 

Wow! That's just like... in Eternity!

[dirigible]

Now imagine if ever

 

 

Everything in the game was designed to be simultaneously obvious and thought provoking. Skeletons are highly resistant to piercing damage. Well duh, they're just bones. But on the flip side, they're highly susceptible to crushing damage.

 

Wow! That's just like... in Eternity!

 

Now imagine if everything else in POE was as logical.

[Alweth]

I agree that immunities in D&D were really overdone. Especially egregious in BG1&2 were the new enemies that had the same or very similar sprite as something common with an obscure name that meant nothing to me and that were immune to a host of random damage types that the basic enemy wasn't immune to.

PoE should have a few obvious immunities though, like Fire Elementals (whatever they're called) to fire, slimes to prone/blind. I don't mind if dragons can be hurt by fire, as long as they have a high DR. It should also be consistent. All slimes should be immune to prone and blind. They definitely shouldn't throw random immunities around like they did with D&D.

 

I don't know if this really makes things more tactical, but it forces you to switch things up, which can lead to tactics, or allow different characters/builds/strategies to shine. That's a good thing.

[Caerdon]

Now imagine if ever

 

 

Everything in the game was designed to be simultaneously obvious and thought provoking. Skeletons are highly resistant to piercing damage. Well duh, they're just bones. But on the flip side, they're highly susceptible to crushing damage.

 

Wow! That's just like... in Eternity!

 

Now imagine if everything else in POE was as logical.

 

That's not true in any game. Skeleton is a simplistic example, and it's really obvious why it has the resistances and weaknesses that it does.

 

But how about something like a skuldr? Who are we to say it's defenses are or are not logical? It doesn't have any DR, which seems logical, as it doesn't appear to have any armor... but then again, if it did have DR against, say, Freezing, how could we possible say that's not logical? We just don't know enough about them.

 

Yeah, it true that the complete lack of actual immunities is a problem in this regard, but even then I find that many of those problems can be explained away with just the smallest amount of hand-waving (oozed getting knocked down and flying things being vulnerable to slicken aren't nearly as unexplainable as people claim them to be).

 

Usually the bigger issue is that people mistake those creatures for their D&D analogues. As it happens, oozes aren't slimes, blights aren't elementals and undead aren't just animated corpses.

[manageri]

Let me give you an example. The Adra Dragon. Toughest enemy in the game. The Adra Dragon has 35DR to fire, which is about the highest fire resistance of any creature in the game. So, what does this mean? Does it mean "almost immune!"? or "Hehehe Close enough!"? NOPE. It means that a wizard's first level fire spell (Fan of Flames) can hit that Adra Dragon for 15-30 burn damage. Or Crit for almost double that.... and this is assuming the wizard only has 10 might. Feel free to do the math for an optimally built 24 Might Aumaua, who's taken the Scion of Flame talent and then spams fan of flames.

 

By contrast, In Icewind Dale if you toss any fire spell at, say, a Salamander, you'll do exactly NO DAMAGE to it at all. No wait, excuse me... you'll do less than that. You'll HEAL him instead. <----- that's how a real, tactical RPG does it.

 

 

But you're not gonna kill the adra dragon remotely as fast with fire, so if you're casting those spells you're prolonging the fight, which is kind of a big deal since it WILL eventually murder your tank (unless he's blessed with the super health bug, which seems to be almost universal right now). You'll be doing a ton more damage by using frost instead. The sad thing is that this is one of the few truly challenging fights in the game where you have to care about using the right element (at least on hard, I've yet to try PotD), but it certainly does reward you for picking frost spells over fire. Indeed it could be said that if the dragon was immune to fire, it would take less thought, since even a retard can figure out that when you see those immune messages popping up you have to switch elements.

[wotdlois]

As i am reading this and other disappointment threads based on game choices by the devs, I cant help but think it will almost guarantee they wont appear in the initial release of Tides of Numenera.  You can  be 100% sure they are scouring these boards for big complaints  and making it a point to add or remove features based on them.  

 

I don't know how far along they are or if some changes cant be made based on current game progression but going second, in this case, in regards to release will most certainly play in their favor.

[Serchs]

For me tactics depends on relatively subtle nuances. A hard counters system ends up being too similar to a rock, scissors, paper game, devoid of any real complexity.

[Trauma_Hound]

1. Undead have plenty of weaknesses that could be exploited through sneak attacks, and can also be "poisoned" in a sense to where they take damage over time or have some sort of status ailment.

 

2. Blinding that which cannot see can be achieved via removal of its other senses that allow it to know where something is.

 

3. You may not be able to knock an ooze "prone" but you could hinder its movement all the same, just scripting that in game would be useless.

 

4. Just because something is made out of natural fire doesn't mean an explosive ball of magical energy can't burn much hotter than it. Fire GodLikes aren't immune to fire.

 

5. It's okay to think outside the box.

[Luckmann]

I agree that the game should have immunities, but those should be used sparingly, when there's a really good reason for it, not simply to spice things up.

 

Specific defences, on the other hand, could be bumped up quite a lot in many, many cases. That'd force players to pay a bit more attention to which defence they're attacking, and it'd make it more exciting facing new enemy types and discovering information on them.

 

That said, I don't think we're quite on the level of "everything works on everything so don't worry about your combat options". That's true to a degree, but paying attention to defences is still worthwhile and beneficial.

 

Nah. That is silly. Some things should just be outright immune to things. And, while ogres should be hard to knockdown they shouldn't be any more resistant to poison than, say, a dwarf. (poisons use fortitude right?). And, if you are gonna go that high might as well make it total immunity.

 

"The dose makes the poison."

 

Assuming there are not special immunities in play, an ogre should definitely be more resistant to poison than a dwarf. Just like a rhinoceros is more resistant than a sheep.

 

Pretty much this, but as to what constitutes "sparingly" is highly debatable. I prefer "when it makes sense"; immunities as a whole, I have no problem with if it makes sense and if it crops up all the friggin' time, as long as it's not the same immunity.

 

As for the "true to a degree", the issues is that while you consider paying attention to defences to be worthwhile, I really don't. You are correct in that it's beneficial, for sure, yes, but if I'm in an encounter, I'm going to win or lose that completely independently of whether I pay attention to their defences or not.

 

I haven't played Path of the Damned, where these things are played up a little bit, but still only by a little, and it is across the board; the actual differences aren't increased, they're all increased by the same percentage. But in Hard, I have yet to ever see any relevance in switching weapons or tactics. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

 

My high-RES high-PER cloth-clad duelist Paladin deathlike has been using a rapier and except for a short while when I decided that the Longsword I found was just too much better, I haven't used any other weapon. The only exception to this was when I started plowing through the phantoms and such with fire spells in the Temple of Eothas, but once I had more appropriate gear (when I once again ran into the same type of enemies at Caed Nua) it really no longer mattered.

 

The game should be littered with (various) immunities and all defences/vulnerabilities played up, especially the defences.

[Caerdon]

Can't disagree with that, really.

[DruidX]

Hey I made this chart showing what all monsters are vulnerable or resistant to ( in terms of Damage Reduction/Defenses)

 

(SPOILERS: Monster names!)

 

Pillars of Eternity: Monster Strengths and Weaknesses

 

Hope this helps

Those are resistances, not immunities though

[dirigible]

That's not true in any game. Skeleton is a simplistic example, and it's really obvious why it has the resistances and weaknesses that it does.

 

But how about something like a skuldr? Who are we to say it's defenses are or are not logical? It doesn't have any DR, which seems logical, as it doesn't appear to have any armor... but then again, if it did have DR against, say, Freezing, how could we possible say that's not logical? We just don't know enough about them.

 

Yeah, it true that the complete lack of actual immunities is a problem in this regard, but even then I find that many of those problems can be explained away with just the smallest amount of hand-waving (oozed getting knocked down and flying things being vulnerable to slicken aren't nearly as unexplainable as people claim them to be).

 

Usually the bigger issue is that people mistake those creatures for their D&D analogues. As it happens, oozes aren't slimes, blights aren't elementals and undead aren't just animated corpses.

However, slimes clearly don't have any eyeballs, and clearly cannot be "knocked down". They're a blob of jelly.

 

When I can't tell what a creature's resistances should be, then it's up to the dev to make it clear. Going into Divinity Original Sin, I wouldn't think that poison would heal undead creatures. But it does, in DOS. That's just how their universe works, and it's consistent. Any undead you go up against, you'll know that poison will heal them. I'm okay with that.

 

What I'm less okay with is monsters being immune to certain things for no apparent reason or, less annoying, NOT being immune to things that they logically should.

[dirigible]

3. You may not be able to knock an ooze "prone" but you could hinder its movement all the same, just scripting that in game would be useless.

You're describing the Stuck condition. Or possibly the Hobbled condition. You definitely are not describing the Prone condition.

[Ondb]

Well if this makes somebody happy, during my bounty missions i have found out that prone effect does not work at all. There were whole group of humans apparently immune to prone from all my Wizard spells. 

 

However Fighter knockdown worked and applied prone effect, so i could be just part of planned nerf of Wizard spells (slicken, Call to slumber) from 1.03 patch.