No immunities

[Amentep]

The "soul arguments" strike me as very silly.  When I throw dirt in someone's eyes I'm attacking their soul? Gimme a break.

You're throwing the soul of the dirt into the soul of their eyes.

 

Blinding oozes strikes me as equally dumb tbh.

Just remember when you blind an ooze in his soul, it's striking its ooze on your soul. You've been soul oozed.

 

 

(the above may not be serious)

 

And you guys, in your rush to defend the game's unrealistic design choices, are missing the greater picture:  Removing all special defenses from the enemies has resulted in combat that is completely flat.  Every fight is basically the same.  The way to change that is to vary the defenses/attacks of the bad guys.

 

By making oozes immune/resistant to many common types of CC and attack, you could have an enemy that actually requires a brain-cell to combat rather than which is EVERY FREAKING FIGHT.

Generally speaking (and more seriously speaking) so far I agree with you. A lot of combat decisions in the game basically fall in "does this character tank or not" and then making sure the tanks attack and everyone else snipes. And have some exit plan for teleporters.

[Eurhetemec]

 

 

 

 

I should not be able to terrify automatons, or frighten rotten vessels that even lack the most basic of drive for survival, with anything short of holy light.

 

Make your mind up. If vessels can be terrified by holy light, they have some sort of survival instinct, period.

 

What you seem to be missing with this example is that, unlike Dungeons and Dragons, in Pillars of Exile, both of these things have souls. Souls which can be targeted by magic - Cipher, Chanter, Priest, Wizard, etc. - doesn't matter which, they have souls. Those souls can be hit with magic, and thus they should not be completely immune to fear etc.

 

Some of your other examples are valid, some aren't, most are a bit simplistic.

 

 

No, there's a difference between a threat of physical harm, and banishment. A barbaric yell would do nothing vs. a vessel or spirit, but shattering their simple minds by a blinding flash of holy light is different. Terrify is not always just Terrify, just like Prone isn't always just Prone - for example, flying opponents should not be subject to terrain effects like Slicken, but they should still be able to be attacked with Knockdown.

 

But you also call it Pillars of Exile, so.. eh, not sure of how serious I should take you.

 

 

But there's literally no difference between magic that affects a target's soul and magic that affects a target's soul. This isn't D&D. That cannot be emphasized enough.

 

(Reading Path of Exile new expansion news lol sorry for typo!)

 

There's a huge difference. Not only are far from all Abilities "from the soul" other than in it's most basic form (Rogues, Fighters, for example, mostly have nothing that can be described as supernatural feats of strength or soul-power), but even those that are from the soul, directed force of personality, focused soul-power, "ki", "focus", "wounds" or whatever, are virtually never implied to affect the soul.

 

Just because you have the mental focus and presence of mind to direct electrical energy from your fists, do not mean that you are influencing the soul of whomever you are hitting in a meaningful way. There are words in the game world for people that can do this, and it's "Cipher" and "Animancer". And even so, many of the things a Cipher can do is not implied to be so much subtle or direct manipulation of an enemy's soul as much as it is directing his own soul, the souls of his allies, or to basically thrash the souls of his opponents in order to achieve real-like, out-of-body effects.

 

And like I have said repeatedly, in some cases, it can be appropriate to argue "You affected his soul". These are however isolated cases, at best. You cannot reasonably argue that a Blinding Strike from a Rogue is implied to target the enemy soul. You cannot reasonably argue that a Fighter's Knockdown somehow knocks down the soul of the opponent. It's ridiculous.

 

If you want to argue that a Cipher's Eyestrike should still cause eyeless opponents to be blinded, as it targets the general senses of the opponent, through affecting his soul? You have my ear. But as a matter of fact, in general, as a matter of principle? No. No way.

 

 

What's the end result of all this, though?

 

Pretty sure it's "Ciphers, Wizards, Chanters, Priests and Druids can do absolutely anything, Fighters, Rogues and Rangers get sharp limitations on all their abilities".

 

There are two DIFFERENT arguments that people are compounding together here, too:

 

1) The enemies are flat because their defenses aren't diverse enough.

 

and

 

2) Fighters/Rogues/Rangers should have to suck because they aren't magic (or however you want to spin it).

 

Those are not the same argument, and sticking them together is unhelpful, so let's stop doing that.

 

I actually agree with 1). I'm fine with oozes being immune to blind or whatever. I'm not fine with Fighters, say, having tons of restrictions on their knockdown, but Ciphers (or Priests or whoever) having none on their stuns/blinds etc., just because it vaguely offends someone.

 

Your rationales for why the restrictions should exist pretty much sucked and pointed directly to "Magic can do it, force of arms can't". That's a bad position from a game design perspective. Only if the Fighter/Rogue/Ranger abilities were made VASTLY more effective would this "let's limit it!" stuff make sense.

[scrotiemcb]

 

[...]

 

In general, hard things should be hard, not impossible. In a fantasy setting I'm a huge opponent of "impossible" and a big proponent of "you have to be pretty epic to pull that off." And sometimes lucky, too. Heck, they could be achievements. Give oozes, I don't know, +80 to defense vs Blind, and make an achievement called "Blind an ooze." Or "Terrify a Flesh Construct." Etc.

In general, I agree; I would like to see a lot of "hard, but not impossible", but I still think that there should be quite a lot of immunities, in the cases where it makes sense. For example, I don't think an Ogre should be immune to Prone, but it should be damn hard to knock him down, and certainly not with a Graze, no matter if the Graze is for 1 second.

That's not really how the Accuracy/Defense system works. It's more like their Defense should be so high that a Graze is the best outcome possible. Edited April 14, 2015 by scrotiemcb

[MadDemiurg]

Personally I think that permanent immunities are a bad design, since make effect based abilities too situational, which is especially painful for classes that have to learn these abilities. Adding too many immunities usually ends in dumb dps dominance over CC and any smarter tactics.  I think there are better ways of introducing challenge and variety.

 

Temporary immunities that need to be dispelled are welcome though (but technically priest +50 resist spells are almost immunities, so just add enemies (smartly) using them to the game)

Edited April 14, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[Zoolimar]

 

Pretty sure it's "Ciphers, Wizards, Chanters, Priests and Druids can do absolutely anything, Fighters, Rogues and Rangers get sharp limitations on all their abilities".

 

That is totally another problem but it does exist somewhat in PoE. Though not exaggerated.

 

Fighters, barbarians, monks, paladins, rogues they all probably can mop the floor with spellcasters one on one, but in group fights casters get a distinct advantage because they have time to lay down a couple of spells before they get their faces full of axe.

 

And yeah, number of active abilities for "non-spellcasters" is really low. Especially distinct and effective abilities.

 

As I see it "martials" should get soul abilities that work through their body or equipment. They already have this but in a really restricted manner.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Zoolimar

[Luckmann]

What's the end result of all this, though?

 

Pretty sure it's "Ciphers, Wizards, Chanters, Priests and Druids can do absolutely anything, Fighters, Rogues and Rangers get sharp limitations on all their abilities".

 

There are two DIFFERENT arguments that people are compounding together here, too:

 

1) The enemies are flat because their defenses aren't diverse enough.

 

and

 

2) Fighters/Rogues/Rangers should have to suck because they aren't magic (or however you want to spin it).

 

Those are not the same argument, and sticking them together is unhelpful, so let's stop doing that.

 

I actually agree with 1). I'm fine with oozes being immune to blind or whatever. I'm not fine with Fighters, say, having tons of restrictions on their knockdown, but Ciphers (or Priests or whoever) having none on their stuns/blinds etc., just because it vaguely offends someone.

 

Your rationales for why the restrictions should exist pretty much sucked and pointed directly to "Magic can do it, force of arms can't". That's a bad position from a game design perspective. Only if the Fighter/Rogue/Ranger abilities were made VASTLY more effective would this "let's limit it!" stuff make sense.

 

Well for the first argument, that is a legit concern for combat, yes.

 

For the second one.. uhm.. no. Nobody has made that argument. I've seen a lot of strawmen on these forums, but this probably takes the cake. Nobody have said anything even remotely resembling something touching upon that issue. I honestly have no idea where you got that and I have no idea how to actually argue against you - which is the problem with strawman arguments. They misrepresent or misunderstand something for the purpose of create an indefensible position that they assign their opposing party.

 

In reality, two points have been made.

• The state of the combat is stale, flat, simplistic, and boring, and Immunities and Resistances that makes sense based on the opponent should be introduced to alleviate these issues, no matter the original design philosophy of "Hard counters are boring" or not. This is a rational argument.

   

• The current lack of immunities makes no sense based on what we are fighitng, and it feels wrong, and out of place, that you can blind that which has no eyes, knock prone that which has no firm shape, and have opponents that fly slip on terrain effects. This is a emotional argument.

Based on the second argument, it was suggested that it doesn't matter, that it all makes sense, because all abilities and spells targets the soul, not the body. Which is just horse****, everyone laughed at it and dismissed it as flagrantly idiotic. There was great happiness.

 

And then you show up and.. actually defend this? You are the one that create this strong dichotomy between Fighter/Rogue/Ranger Abilities and Supernatural abilities. Nobody else have even suggested it. Quite the opposite.

 

"Just because you have the mental focus and presence of mind to direct electrical energy from your fists, do not mean that you are influencing the soul of whomever you are hitting in a meaningful way. There are words in the game world for people that can do this, and it's "Cipher" and "Animancer". And even so, many of the things a Cipher can do is not implied to be so much subtle or direct manipulation of an enemy's soul as much as it is directing his own soul, the souls of his allies, or to basically thrash the souls of his opponents in order to achieve real-like, out-of-body effects."

 

So.. yeah. I have no idea what you're talking about. This in no way inherently restricts one more than another. Quite the opposite. I've repeatedly mentioned that flying drakes should be immune to Slicken and (most) terrain effects. I've repeatedly mentioned that I'd prefer it if they were immune to that, but not a Fighter's Knockdown. I've mentioned that frost elementals (for example) should be immune to Chill Fog's blinding effect, but perhaps not Blinding Strike. And Oozes should be immune to Knockdown's Prone, Slicken's Prone, Blinding Strike's Blind, but perhaps (perhaps!) arguably (arguably!) not Cipher's Blindstrike.

 

So what you say is taken straight out of thin air.

 

That's not really how the Accuracy/Defense system works. It's more like their Defense should be so high that a Graze is the best outcome possible.

I know how it works. I'm saying how I would want it to work. If it wasn't obvious, there's a difference.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Luckmann

[HoonDing]

even modern bethseda audience won't accept smth like killing fire atronach with fire spells

 

those bugs were quickly fixed in skyrim once they happened

[VioNectro]

Lack of immunities is a dumbing down of combat tactics. Now you have no situations where archers vs magic vs melee is useless and you have to change tactics.

 

Indeed as others have said already it does feel like the game at the moment is block the AI with your tanks somehow if you can with terrain and have whatever is left pound them with range, and when your chanter is ready plop some extra skellies behind them if they are still alive.

Edited April 14, 2015 by VioNectro

[Failion]

^you're joking, but we've seen at least 2 other posters on this thread putting that up as an actual explanation.

 

Which means everyone in this game practices Animancy. (including all level 1 fighters who use their per-encounter knockdown to manipulate souls) Which means the lore, and the game's main plot, doesn't make a lick of sense.

Ya thats actually the case think about it. The whole world has been held back in Animancy for the longest time. Everyone in drywood is either mideval inbred or stupid. Eder for example is ignorance personified. Drakes have the intelligence of house cats. The most intelligent person in pillars is a selfish **** that doesn't want to explain anything to anyone and keep everyone arrested development when it comes to souls, the meaning of life and just about everything.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Failion

[Tayh]

Seems like this sort of thing would be a perfect thing to tie to the difficulty level. Or perhaps an extra option when starting a new game.

[Stun]

Your rationales for why the restrictions should exist pretty much sucked and pointed directly to "Magic can do it, force of arms can't". That's a bad position from a game design perspective. Only if the Fighter/Rogue/Ranger abilities were made VASTLY more effective would this "let's limit it!" stuff make sense.

Not sure how we arrived at the notion that this is a magic can do it but force of arms can't situation (Blindness, Prone and Fire damage are afflictions that both Spell casters and a melee specialists can inflict) But I disagree with the entire argument anyway.

 

There is no reason why Fighter/Rogue/Ranger abilities have to be vastly more effective to compensate for any "magic can do it, force of arms can't" design. The balance (whether obsidian intended it or not) is already there. Fighters are designed to be better survivors than Wizards. Rogues are designed to be bigger damage dealers than priests etc. Plus, all classes have the ability to use magic scrolls. Obsidian could easily put more scrolls in this game if they really thought that making some creatures immune to knockdown and Blindness was too harsh on melee classes (or whatever the gripe is)

 

But who cares anyway if magic is more powerful than force of arms? It SHOULD be.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Stun

[Amentep]

^The typical tradeoff is magic is more powerful but has limited uses (ie I can swing my sword more times than you can lob your fireball)

[LadyCrimson]

It was done deliberately and it's one of the things that makes combat quite boring, IMO as it pretty much ends up being one solution works for everything.

So I've read your Codex post on this issue and I'm coming to agree with it, to a degree at least, particularly the "No Immunities, Hard Counters or Counterspelling" section.

  

I actually do love the game for non-combat aspect reasons, but as I get closer to the endgame of my main playthru I find myself more and more unmotivated because I'm tired of the combat. It's giving me a "sigh, another fight, get it over with" attitude. I don't really care about immunities or being able to pre-buff, per se (I'm fine with trying other/new ways instead, if they work well) but in PoE combat over the long haul - at least for a full or close to full party - starts to feel rote and tedious. It's all very same-y and wearying, outside of those few special encounters/enemies. All these different spells/talents related to protection/suppression etc. and I use none of them, either because an encounter doesn't last long enough to bother, or because there's not much need to - you'll still win.

 

To quote from your post:

Having played through most of the game, I have not cast a single "Prayer Against ..." spell. Not one. I never felt that I needed to, for a number of reasons. You can't cast it as a pre-buff. They don't dispell the current effect. Most durations in the game are fairly short anyway. Most status effects are not very severe.

Yup.

 

It's a shame really. Combat is never my personal main criteria for enjoying/replaying a game such as this and usually I can overlook - or may not really even notice - that it's not ideal. But something just feels off in PoE. It's not engaging/complex enough to be long-term fun, for me, nor quite "mindless" enough (eg, Diablo-like with less to little micromanagment) for me to not mind that it's not complex, if that makes sense. 

[Stun]

^The typical tradeoff is magic is more powerful but has limited uses (ie I can swing my sword more times than you can lob your fireball)

Yep. Along with all the other things that people always take for granted

 

1) Fighters, Barbarians and Rangers have a lot more health than Wizards, Priests, Ciphers and Chanters

2) Sometimes you'll find equipment that the melee classes can wear that grant castable spells. And those are a lot more common than, for example, equipment that spell casters can wear that grant them melee talents, like knockdown, backstab, carnage etc.

3) In the IE games, you often had to deal with creatures who were immune to magic outright. And of course, in those situations, the "magic can do it, force of arms can't" scenario was literally reversed.

4) This is a party based game. Lets think about that for a moment...... this is a party based game. does it matter if some people in your party are less effective on occasion than others?

[sparklecat]

 

It was done deliberately and it's one of the things that makes combat quite boring, IMO as it pretty much ends up being one solution works for everything.

So I've read your Codex post on this issue and I'm coming to agree with it, to a degree at least, particularly the "No Immunities, Hard Counters or Counterspelling" section.

  

I actually do love the game for non-combat aspect reasons, but as I get closer to the endgame of my main playthru I find myself more and more unmotivated because I'm tired of the combat. It's giving me a "sigh, another fight, get it over with" attitude. I don't really care about immunities or being able to pre-buff, per se (I'm fine with trying other/new ways instead, if they work well) but in PoE combat over the long haul - at least for a full or close to full party - starts to feel rote and tedious. It's all very same-y and wearying, outside of those few special encounters/enemies. All these different spells/talents related to protection/suppression etc. and I use none of them, either because an encounter doesn't last long enough to bother, or because there's not much need to - you'll still win.

 

To quote from your post:

Having played through most of the game, I have not cast a single "Prayer Against ..." spell. Not one. I never felt that I needed to, for a number of reasons. You can't cast it as a pre-buff. They don't dispell the current effect. Most durations in the game are fairly short anyway. Most status effects are not very severe.

Yup.

 

It's a shame really. Combat is never my personal main criteria for enjoying/replaying a game such as this and usually I can overlook - or may not really even notice - that it's not ideal. But something just feels off in PoE. It's not engaging/complex enough to be long-term fun, for me, nor quite "mindless" enough (eg, Diablo-like with less to little micromanagment) for me to not mind that it's not complex, if that makes sense. 

 

This is basically how I feel.  I want to give it a second playthrough, but I plan to make a high-stealth character to do all my exploring and avoid most of the fights because the combat is simply not inherently much fun, outside of a few major battles.

[Gangrelrumbler]

I think that it doesn't matter that being able to blind a slime technically makes sense because of soul magic. The point is that it doesn't feel right. The flying creatures are exciting precisely because they are flying, if it doesn't effect the game then it's not exciting anymore. I mean sure, it might suck for some classes to not be able to use some abilities, but getting through situations like that is what makes combat fun. The drakes shouldn't be slipping on the floor not because it's unrealistic but because it strips them of their individuality.

[Luckmann]

 

^The typical tradeoff is magic is more powerful but has limited uses (ie I can swing my sword more times than you can lob your fireball)

Yep. Along with all the other things that people always take for granted

 

1) Fighters, Barbarians and Rangers have a lot more health than Wizards, Priests, Ciphers and Chanters

2) Sometimes you'll find equipment that the melee classes can wear that grant castable spells. And those are a lot more common than, for example, equipment that spell casters can wear that grant them melee talents, like knockdown, backstab, carnage etc.

3) In the IE games, you often had to deal with creatures who were immune to magic outright. And of course, in those situations, the "magic can do it, force of arms can't" scenario was literally reversed.

4) This is a party based game. Lets think about that for a moment...... this is a party based game. does it matter if some people in your party are less effective on occasion than others?

 

 

#4 right there. It's like the #1 rule of PnP GM:ing. You're a group of people, and everyone should be allowed to shine. When everyone is special, no-one is. Everyone should do things no-one else can. Everyone shouldn't be necessary at every turn, but everyone should have those moments when they truly shine, when they feel indispensable, when they manage to do that thing or add that something that no-one else can.

 

So you present the group with the scenario of the locked castle, where the rogue-like player has to scale the walls or sneak inside. And you drop the wounded lord in front of them so the Paladin can go all "I heal him with my Lay on Hands!". And you make them travel through a forest, guided by the Ranger that scores so well on his whateverwildernessloreorsomething test that they find something nifty.

 

I realize that such granular design is hard in a CRPG, but when we're talking about combat here, it should in general be easier, rather than harder. It doesn't matter if your Wizard has specialized in frost spells and you meet ice elementals that are immune. Yes, you're useless, but just wait until you come to the Temple of Fire. Just wait until you get to drop that Blizzard, Critically Hit them all with Chill Fog, and bounce shards of ice off their ass.

 

And it doesn't matter if the Priest feels all buffy for a while. Because when you get to the graveyard, it is on. Oh, you people keep taking dumps on me because I'm a Morninglord of Lathander? Well have you SEEEEEEEN THE LIIIIIIIIIIIGHT OF DAWN!? and then all the skeletons were ash and you go like "Boooyaaaaah!".

 

I'm not getting that feeling in PoE at all, and it's, like.. I got the impression that pretty much everyone at Obsidian plays PnP:s. How did they miss this?

 

 

Also, more reactivity please. Being a Priestess of Eothas and interacting with Durance and Edér and going through the Temple of Eothas was pathetic.

 

 

I think that it doesn't matter that being able to blind a slime technically makes sense because of soul magic. The point is that it doesn't feel right. The flying creatures are exciting precisely because they are flying, if it doesn't effect the game then it's not exciting anymore. I mean sure, it might suck for some classes to not be able to use some abilities, but getting through situations like that is what makes combat fun. The drakes shouldn't be slipping on the floor not because it's unrealistic but because it strips them of their individuality.

^

 

There's emotional arguments and factual arguments. No matter which way we cut it, the game would be better off with Immunities and both hard and soft counters. Whether it's a feeling or about making combat less static, doesn't matter. There's many reasons.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Luckmann

[Amentep]

 

Also, more reactivity please. Being a Priestess of Eothas and interacting with Durance and Edér and going through the Temple of Eothas was pathetic.

 

 

There was a point during the Temple of Eothas that it hit me that Fighter Eder was an Eothasian and had been talking about Eothas and his history of the temple and it occurred to me that non-priest characters can't declare a faith. So you get those Eothasian dialogue prompts that only a priest could do, but if you were a practicing Eothasian you'd probably know, for example, what those candles were.

 

I suppose it'd be another level of stuff to try and test for, but it did strike me that you pretty much can't play a religious character (even if you choose clergyman as a background!) unless you're also a priest

 

[Beastro]

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.

 

Really?

 

Wow.

 

I just assumed this was in because, well, even the most basic of RPGs like Final Fantasy have things like flying creatures being immune to ground effects and never bothered using certain spells in such fights.

 

 

Also, more reactivity please. Being a Priestess of Eothas and interacting with Durance and Edér and going through the Temple of Eothas was pathetic.

 

 

My second game is as Eothosian Priest and I really was expecting more than a few extra flavour texts scattered about.

 

 

Hell, I was expecting a fight first entering Gilded Vale when my guy sees the hanging corpses and being outraged at the purge of my characters co-religionists as well as stormy, bitter arguments with Durance when we talked.

 

 

I also noticed there's about one part where an Aristocratic background even comes up outside of the tutorial and it's yet again, just a short line of flavour text.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Beastro

[mathmatics]

wanted to res this post I found on google. Obsidian did such a great job post release. I never knew there was a time slimes were not immune to prone :D

[asnjas]

i disagree and hope they keep immunities out.

 

id rather tactics come from my own desire to explore and experiment with skill and spell combinations instead of the game forcing me to change because of arbitrary immunities.

 

if i choose to use the same one spell then thats on the player. the game creators are responsible for opening up the game and variations. immunities restrict options. they prevent the player from using certain tactics. zero immunities opens the game by allowing any tactic the player wants at any time.

 

feel free to think outside the box. why do players need the game to force them? players should take some responsibilty. all the game creators ought to do is give you many tools to use and open up the worlds to let you play with the tools. if you choose the same tool every time then its on you.

 

and if a player wants to use the same tool everytime then let them. i just dont see what benefit comes from arbitrary immunities temporarily forcing you to change tactics.

Edited December 16, 2016 by asnjas

[Fenixp]

i disagree and hope they keep immunities out.

Some immunities are overdone, but it really makes no sense for some monsters to be affected by some effects, purely from the lore perspective.

[JerekKruger]

Some immunities are overdone, but it really makes no sense for some monsters to be affected by some effects, purely from the lore perspective.

 

Agreed. I am all for immunities that make sense (slimes being immune to prone, animats being immune to poison etc.), what I don't like is the use of immunities to make fights tougher without any real reason.

[JFutral]

This was an interesting read. This is why I couldn't figure out why be or use a cipher since few of your opponents are human or kith. Apparently that doesn't matter. Good to know.

 

Although I would think immunity level based on difficulty setting could be easily enough implemented. I still fondly remember figuring out how to use a Lightning Spearazon on  the Hell difficulty setting in Diablo II!

 

Joe