No immunities

[Volourn]

Yup. Knocking down ogres is pretty easy.  Knock down is probably the best fighter talent. So much I took it as a talent so i can use it 3 times a fight. L0L In fact, knocking down an ogre (or otherwise stunning them) is the way to beat them because a single hit can hurt you big.

[Jasta11]

Honestly, immunities are only good in spare quantity. Fire elementals immune to fire, OK. Creatures without eyes that can't be blinded, fine. Oozes immune to Prone, well I simply interpreted it as you distrupting its form but alright. Beyond that, I don't think they are a good gameplay concept. Especially the immunity to +2 weapons or lower in D&D or the like, that was just boring and arbitrary. 

 

Perhaps what they should have done is simply make some creatures have higher defenses against specific attacks than they do now. So give Ogres massive Fortitude, Vithrak massive Reflex, Animats massive Will, etc. By massive I mean 150ish, so you need very high accuracy to crack their defenses, or give them 200+ so it's just downright impossible. 

[Volourn]

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.

[VioNectro]

Yea, but I mean are there enemies where you can only hit them with a "+5" sword for example, in dnd there are cases where a creature could only get hit with certain magic swords regardless of how awesome your attack rolls are.

 But this is not DnD. There is no such mechanic in PoE (thankfully, when it comes to the magic-weapons-thing, imo, since it was a blanket immunity for no sensible reason); the reason your people are yelling out is because you are failing to penetrate their Damage Resistance/Threshold, likely because you are using a "bad" weapon.

Well in a sense it is a type of immunity, i.e. its a magical creature and needs a magical sword to touch it; but moving to a more practical example, do fire creatures take damage from fire? Do undead gain health from healing? etc. not having some types of hard immunities seem very counter intuitive, but I guess obsidian was trying to simplify the rules in this case.

[Tanred]

I wonder if there wasn't a missed opportunity here.  It seems like every ability works on every enemy even when it doesn't make any sense.  I think immunities based on creature-type would have gone really well with the bestiary style xp system. 

 

Some examples off the top of my head:

slimes -> immune to prone, blind

Flying creatures -> immune to slicken, traps.

undead -> immune to fear, gas

 

You get the idea.  I think it would have made the differences between enemies more tactically interesting if you had to work around their immunities, as long as they made sense.

 

I agree, lack of imunities is one of my biggest pet peeves with the game. It would improve the encounters a lot.

[PBJam]

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

[ChipMHazard]

It's simply silly gameplay design to not have enemies such as skeletons be unaffected by blinding effects. As an example. 

This is most definently something I would want them to change or have some skilled modders implement. 

Edited April 5, 2015 by ChipMHazard

[mclemente]

This feature makes it so easy to play a Rogue, right now I'm on a sewer with ooze and trolls (trying to be spoiler-free here). I just get behind the target, do a Blinding Strike + Hobbling Strike combo on Ooze means insta-kill along with Backstab's crit, same for skeletons. I can't even...

[manageri]

I'm not really sure what to think about this. A few immunities would seem logical and all, but then there's always the fear that too many enemies with immunity to X effect makes builds that heavily utilize X effect crappy. For example, half the damn NWN2 campaign was against undead so rogues were kinda crap most of the time. I think the concept of some enemies having really high specific defenses largely does the same thing, at least in theory, which is forcing you to change your tactics. Only problem with that currently is that the game is generally too easy and many abilities are just OP. If you couldn't murder everything in 5 seconds at higher levels then it might actually matter that you can only reliably land glancing knockdowns on those high fortitude foes and such.

[mammasaura]

Immunities from both side (for pc and creature) doesn't appeal me at all, it makes me feel lame.

Pro for high resistance to a type of damage but not immunity.

Fire sword on fire elemental? It's going to take the iron anyway.

 

Rename the blindness status into senseless: you don't put the blind malus, but you affects all senses to give a mean to the accuracy malus usually blind does.

Blind creatures can't easily hit if not because of the other senses. But immunities? No, please

Edited April 6, 2015 by jasminizer

[Cronstintein]

I agree, if you go overboard it can get a bit much.  For example, I likely wouldn't make anything immune to sneak attacks or something that broad (and class defining). 

 

But it would raise my interest level when I fought a new creature and I had to think about what may or may not be effective against it.  Right now I just KD, Blind, fireball and that pretty much always works.

 

And I would have given oozes massive DR vs physical attacks but super weak vs magic.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Cronstintein

[Darkpriest]

Lack of immunities was odd. I was very surprised that i could KD a slime :D and more of odd things. Although imagine a certain boss immune to petrification and KDs. *gasps*

 

I can only hope that they will refine the combat system and bestiary for PoE2 it is after all a first itteration of an own brewed RPG system.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Cronstintein]

I can't imagine it didn't occur to them though.  It was a conscious choice which is what worries me.  Someone actually decided knocking down slimes was a good idea.

[Volourn]

"Fire sword on fire elemental? It's going to take the iron anyway."

 

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

[Stun]

I can't imagine it didn't occur to them though.  It was a conscious choice which is what worries me.  Someone actually decided knocking down slimes was a good idea.

Everything we're discussing on this thread has occurred to the developers, and they've engaged us in discussion about all of this extensively... numerous times here and elsewhere in the last couple of years. The design was deliberate. No, more than that. The Design was a result of a very strongly held game philosophy.

 

If you ask them why you can backstab a Spore, or how in hell an amorphous blob of goo can be knocked down, or why a flying creature can slip and fall on slickened ground that it's not touching, they will respond by turning the entire issue upside down and giving you stupid, casual-gamer-centric, answers that don't actually address the LOGIC issue, like:

 

1) If we limit the number of creatures that can be knocked down, people playing fighters will complain that knockdown isn't useful!

2) If we make some creatures immune to a certain element type, then we will be screwing over those players who filled their Grimoires up with Fire spells! Or Ice spells, or shock spells etc. Not to mention non-spell casters, who, without meta-knowledge, decided to enchant their weapons with a specific element damage type and then later find themselves screwed when entering a cave full of Fire Blights! (remember the goal here: No Bad Builds. No useless talents.)

 

^^^ 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.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Stun

[Hatred]

 I agree about the lack of imunities being a problem. It feels more like an attempt to cater to the casual market than a missed opportunity though. The more I play and think about this game the more it seems like it was trying to 'cater to a wider audience' than the IE games it pretends to hark back to. Not like those games had bad sales figures though.

[CaravanMaster]

 

I can't imagine it didn't occur to them though.  It was a conscious choice which is what worries me.  Someone actually decided knocking down slimes was a good idea.

Everything we're discussing on this thread has occurred to the developers, and they've engaged us in discussion about all of this extensively... numerous times here and elsewhere in the last couple of years. The design was deliberate. No, more than that. The Design was a result of a very strongly held game philosophy.If you ask them why you can backstab a Spore, or how in hell an amorphous blob of goo can be knocked down, or why a flying creature can slip and fall on slickened ground that it's not touching, they will respond by turning the entire issue upside down and giving you stupid, casual-gamer-centric, answers that don't actually address the LOGIC issue, like:1) If we limit the number of creatures that can be knocked down, people playing fighters will complain that knockdown isn't useful!2) If we make some creatures immune to a certain element type, then we will be screwing over those players who filled their Grimoires up with Fire spells! Or Ice spells, or shock spells etc. Not to mention non-spell casters, who, without meta-knowledge, decided to enchant their weapons with a specific element damage type and then later find themselves screwed when entering a cave full of Fire Blights! (remember the goal here: No Bad Builds. No useless talents.)^^^ 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.

  

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

@Stun: they did make monsters immune to certain elemens, see the table PBJam posted. Well not completely immune but highly resistant or vulnerable, which is similar

[Emerwyn]

I'm going to agree that this could be improved, Some things don't make much sense, and at least in higher difficulty settings I would like to see it changed. Then again, I'm not outraged about it, but I would see improvement in having some enemies adjusted to make more sense.

[Stun]

@Stun: they did make monsters immune to certain elemens, see the table PBJam posted. Well not completely immune but highly resistant or vulnerable, which is similar

It's NOT similar. At all. It's an utterly different approach to game design. It's literally the "everything works on everything so if you do not wish to think, you don't have to, kids" game design that appeals to casuals...who, you know, can't be bothered to think and adapt to unique challenges.

 

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.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Stun

[durbal]

I prefer this game's system.  Immunities are pretty lame.

[durbal]

 

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.

 

 

That doesn't sound very tactical at all.  It's just a trivial decision to click on a different spell.

[PBJam]

 

@Stun: they did make monsters immune to certain elemens, see the table PBJam posted. Well not completely immune but highly resistant or vulnerable, which is similar

It's NOT similar. At all. It's an utterly different approach to game design. It's literally the "everything works on everything so if you do not wish to think, you don't have to, kids" game design that appeals to casuals...who, you know, can't be bothered to think and adapt to unique challenges.

 

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.

 

So maybe the solution is to increase the DRs for those elements that they are resistant to?

[Stun]

That doesn't sound very tactical at all.  It's just a trivial decision to click on a different spell.

Oh you mean, choose a different spell, instead of just mindlessly spamming the same spell at every enemy from the tutorial to the credits because you don't have to use any other spell, because that spell works on everyone? Herp derp.

[Emerwyn]

 

 

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.

 

 

That doesn't sound very tactical at all.  It's just a trivial decision to click on a different spell.

 

 

Yeah I don't see why some people see see a tactical choice in not making a choice at all because the enemy is telegraphing you what spell you should use. In fact, you're being forced into using a particular spell, removing the choice at all. "HEY I'm the guy that is immune to fire and takes 200% damage from frost. Make your tactical choice!"

 

Ehm... let's see, my best damage spells are Lightningbolt, Cone of Cold and Fireball. But I'm so smart that I'm using the Cone of Cold against salamanders. I feel so tactical now.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Emerwyn

[Spivo]

While I hate people whining about the game features, this also struck me as bad.

I was incredibly surprised that my skeleton minion was confused... Wtf?