No buffing outside of combat, why?

[vyvexthorne]

I kind of like it this way.. it takes away some of the tedium. In IWD 1 and 2.. you pretty much had to keep your characters buffed at all times. That meant casting lots and lots of spells right after resting. You'd get into a repetitive pattern. It also really sucked when you're party would get de-buffed during a fight and you'd then have no way of recasting certain spells without resting again. I pretty much abused resting in IWD...

 

This system allows you to go further without having to rest/recast as much between altercations.

[endolex]

In IWD 1 and 2.. you pretty much had to keep your characters buffed at all times. 

Nope.

[ibanix]

Just to be clear, I was posting /in favor/ of combat-only buffs. I find it makes the game far more interesting.

[ibanix]

 

In IWD 1 and 2.. you pretty much had to keep your characters buffed at all times. 

Nope.

 

 

I have to agree with the OP, IWD/IWD2 play usually meant heavy pre-buffing - at least on the hard modes. 

[Stun]

Are you mad that you can't cast mind control spells out of combat for the same reason?  "Logical" is a bad reason to do anything in a game where souls are literally things that literally exist.  The tension and adrenaline of combat are what allow the priest/paladin/whatever to focus enough on their faith/zeal/whatever to draw forth their mystical power.  Alternatively, the god/whoever won't respond to your prayers against harm because there's no imminent harm because you're not actually in combat yet.  The reason you can open with attack spells is that you're already amping yourself up and so you've got that focus.  See?  Logical.

 

True, that.

 

I mean, just yesterday I was pondering on how remarkably believable it is that a Wizard is unable to read the buffing spells in his Grimoire unless there's enemies in front of him. I thought to myself, "wow! that makes sense!"

Edited April 10, 2015 by Stun

[RedSocialKnight]

if the underlying design problem is agreed to be "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming"

 

It isn't.

 

Although pre-buffing does make games tedious, the reason for that is that it removes tactical choices from the heat of combat. That is the issue.

 

 

a Wizard is unable to read the buffing spells in his Grimoire unless there's enemies in front of him

 

That actually sounds like exactly how a magical book might work. Pages appear blank until the hour of need, when your enemy's name appears in letters of fire....

Edited April 10, 2015 by RedSocialKnight

[Luckmann]

[...]

 

Although pre-buffing does make games tedious, the reason for that is that it removes tactical choices from the heat of combat. That is the issue.

 

[...]

How? Why? I can see no reason as to why that statement would be true.

[Stun]

That actually sounds like exactly how a magical book might work. Pages appear blank until the hour of need, when your enemies name appearsw in letters of fire....

Except the pages aren't blank. And there's exactly nothing in the game's lore to suggest that a wizard Grimoire itself is magical.

[Caerdon]

Except the pages aren't blank. And there's exactly nothing in the game's lore to suggest that a wizard Grimoire itself is magical.

 

Arcane Assault's description definitely suggests that, though it's far from conclusive proof.

[Stun]

 

[...]

 

Although pre-buffing does make games tedious, the reason for that is that it removes tactical choices from the heat of combat. That is the issue.

 

[...]

How? Why? I can see no reason as to why that statement would be true.

 

The argument he's putting forth is the same one that Josh puts forth when you grill him on this topic.

 

The idea is that by eliminating pre-buffing, you force the player, during combat, to make a choice between spending his turn buffing, or spending his turn attacking. Thus TACTICAL! And sure, I suppose that makes sense...in a game where 1) You're controlling only one character; 2) those are the only two options you have; 3) combat itself is so banally simplistic that there isn't anything more to it than Attacking or Defending anyway.

 

But for those of us who have actually played the IE games, the Purpose of pre-buffing is to give your party that extra head start so you can spend your time in combat doing more meaningful, tactical things. Like dividing the mobs, summoning and trapping, corralling, healing, debuffing the enemy, recovering from an enemy's debuff, counter-spelling, back stabbing, disappearing, raising dead party members, teamwork and oh yeah.... Buffing and Attacking.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Stun

[Volourn]

"I kind of like it this way.. it takes away some of the tedium. In IWD 1 and 2.. you pretty much had to keep your characters buffed at all times. That meant casting lots and lots of spells right after resting. You'd get into a repetitive pattern. It also really sucked when you're party would get de-buffed during a fight and you'd then have no way of recasting certain spells without resting again. I pretty much abused resting in IWD...

 

This system allows you to go further without having to rest/recast as much between altercations."

 

Why do you suck so bad at games?

[WebShaman]

*blinks*

 

Being able to use magic outside of combat really opens up possibilities, instead of the opposite.

 

I really liked it in BG where one could Charm someone and get different dialog and endings to quests, etc.

 

What, however, really bugs me about PoE, is that NPC Wizards, etc can use magic outside of combat but you cannot.  So no, I can't Charm, Dominate, Change form, etc, but the world around me can.  Even Grieving Mother can use her abilities outside of combat...until she joins your party.  Oh, all of a sudden she is visible to everyone...

 

Makes no sense, whatsoever.

[Volourn]

"I personally would love to see a Beholder in PoE = dead party"

 

Nah. It be dumbed down bdause it would have no insta kill power. It's flesh to stone/paralysis abilities would not be permenant, etc.

[Prime-Mover]

 

[...]

 

Although pre-buffing does make games tedious, the reason for that is that it removes tactical choices from the heat of combat. That is the issue.

 

[...]

How? Why? I can see no reason as to why that statement would be true.

 

Based on personal experience, I imagine it's because those choices have 1) already been made before the heat of combat, to some extent, and 2) pre-buff is usually - at least in IE - a matter of casting the same 4-5 spells prior to every, single, encounter, with only small variations when meeting abnormal encounters, e.g. Firkraag, and the like. This means, that for many, pre-buffing is just the same chore over and over again, i.e. very tedious. The reason is that battle-buffing and pre-buffing encourages to different playstyles (at least for me).

 

With pre-buff, you buff prior to encounters. This gives you the advantage of being able to get more buffs in (protect from evil, stoneskin, true sight, mirror image, improved invis etc), instead of using critical time during the encounter, while you and/or your partymembers are getting killed. However, because you are buffing before encounters, a lot of the time you don't know what you are facing. Therefore, so you don't prepare to be optimized for that particular encounter. You prepare/buff to be optimized for all possible encounters. And for most people, that means a tried and true generalist buffinglist, which will need to be activated each, and every time. 

 

 

PeE buffing is - at least with regards to my playstyle and skill - a bit different. Instead of picking the generally best buffs which I know will be fine against almost all encounters, I now wait for the encounter to begin before deciding the optimal buffs, based on that particular encounter. However, due to time constraints, there's much fewer buffs to chose from. But, since I actually know who and how many I am fighting, I can chose the optimal buffs for that particular situation, which is - again - different from encounter to encounter. This - depending on what we mean by the term - seems much more tactically engaging.

 

IMXP, and according to my playstyle and skill, that makes buffing a more engaging tactical element, than the standard IE pre-buffing scheme. That being said, from following this discussion, I've actually begun to come around to the idea of pre-buffing, if it can be made less of a chore. I liked DA:O's system, though I have an aversion to the whole manapool notion. 

[manageri]

 

 

[...]

 

Although pre-buffing does make games tedious, the reason for that is that it removes tactical choices from the heat of combat. That is the issue.

 

[...]

How? Why? I can see no reason as to why that statement would be true.

 

The argument he's putting forth is the same one that Josh puts forth when you grill him on this topic.

 

The idea is that by eliminating pre-buffing, you force the player, during combat, to make a choice between spending his turn buffing, or spending his turn attacking. Thus TACTICAL! And sure, I suppose that makes sense

 

Indeed it does. Wish you had stopped here.

 

...in a game where 1) You're controlling only one character; 2) those are the only two options you have; 3) combat itself is so banally simplistic that there isn't anything more to it than Attacking or Defending anyway.

 

This whole section is based on nothing resembling logic as far as I can tell. Do elaborate on WHY any of this is so, rather than just asserting random stuff, thx.

 

 

But for those of us who have actually played the IE games, the Purpose of pre-buffing is to give your party that extra head start so you can spend your time in combat doing more meaningful, tactical things. ...Like dividing the mobs, summoning and trapping, corralling, healing, debuffing the enemy, recovering from an enemy's debuff, counter-spelling, back stabbing, disappearing, raising dead party members, teamwork and oh yeah.... Buffing and Attacking.

 

No, the purpose of pre-buffing in IE games was to make you stronger so you can win. That's it. And guess what: the exact same thing is accomplished by eliminating prebuffing on the player's side and bringing down the power on the enemy side, thus preserving the power ratio. And here's a fun fact about doing that: It frees up all those spell slots to be used in combat, and amazingly enough, casting spells in combat is in fact much more fun than watching buff animations for 2 minutes and then watching those buffed characters auto-attack everything to pieces, which is a lot closer to the reality of combat in IE games than that check list of (largely made up) stuff you wrote.

 

Thanks to no pre-buffing you now have to actually THINK about whether you should buff at all in any given situation, rather than use an offensive spell or do something else entirely, and if you do decide to buff, you must choose which buffs you want up first. This alone makes the numerically smaller selection of priest spells in PoE compared to IE games feel similar, if not broader, since many more of them are now realistic options in combat.

 

No, you can't have your brainless "buff up - chunk everything" gameplay back.

[Jotra]

Here's the thing it's kinda an illusion that pre-buffing makes you party stronger. What I mean is that if a game allows you to pre-buff the encounters are also going to be designed with that in mind. Also pre-buffing especially in late BG2+ToB took ages, and simply wasn't even a tiny bit fun for me at least.

[Daemonjax]

I do believe potions should be available for use outside of combat since they're a limited resource anyways.

 

I'd be in favor for removing the "combat only" limitations on the wizard class for at least some of their buff spells.

 

Scrolls might take things too far --  not sure... but it might be OK (as long as the spell is normally castable outside of combat) since you'd have to invest in Lore.

 

 

The combat isn't difficult in this game when not using any potions/scrolls/food/rest bonuses at all, which is neither an argument for or against pre-buffing -- just an observation.

 

 

I'd like to see the above in a mod to try it out.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Daemonjax

[Stun]

No, the purpose of pre-buffing in IE games was to make you stronger so you can win. That's it

Oh, I wouldn't say that.

 

Pre-buffing can be a LOT more meaningful than simply "making you stronger". And I'll give you a very common example. Invisibility. Invisibility is an IE game pre-buff. But it doesn't make you stronger. Instead, it simply opens up new tactical avenues. It allows for optimal positioning. It sets up your Thief. It places your Fighter in front of the Enemy's mage so that when the fight begins, that mage is instantly put into a melee situation. And no, PoE's pathetic excuse for Stealth is not a valid substitute, because it doesn't work that way at all.

 

And then there's Protection from Evil. In BG2, Protection from evil is more than a buff that makes you stronger. It's a buff that nullifies an enemy's demon summoning spells. it forces that demon to ignore you, allowing you to focus your efforts on the enemy itself, instead of the enemy's summon.

 

We are denied these tactical options in PoE, NOT because of "balance" (or whatever the preferred argument on this thread currently is) but because Josh Sawyer thinks that pre-buffing is Rote, and that Combat should be more quick and 'actiony'. <gag>

Edited April 11, 2015 by Stun

[WebShaman]

Ok, then how about some Contingency and Sequencer spells instead?

 

Now the anti-pre-buff crowd is happy (no pre-buffing!  Hrmmpph!) and we, the pre-buff crowd, are at least mollified.  And with only one "button" to press, no click-click.

 

Would put a bit more Oompf back in the Wizard IMHO.

[Stun]

Sequencers and Contingencies are freaking great. But it won't change the debate here because the people who dislike pre-buffing will simply put forth the same argument. You DO, after all, still have to cast those spells before the fight (TEDIOUS!), And in the case of contingencies, you aren't forced to make that awesome-sauce decision in combat as to whether you should attack or buff (TACTICS!).

 

So we're back to square one, even though Sequencers and Contingencies are the very definition of tactical, and even though they were what made mages and mage multi-classes so friggin fun to play in BG2.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Stun

[WebShaman]

Well, one does have to set them up, but after that, only to maintain new spells as one levels up and gets new spells that supersede old ones.  Not as tedious as click-click-click after every rest.

 

And I am not so sure there will be as many outraged outcries here - it is just a form of in-combat buffing.  To decry it, one will have to decry buffing itself!

 

The summons figurines already break the game beyond all repair.  Just give them to your Chanter, or Ranger, and summon away!  A total of 6! creatures (are there more?) before the Chanter summons become active...fun, fun, fun!

 

This is allowed, but not pre-buffing?

 

 

[Stun]

The summons figurines already break the game beyond all repair.  Just give them to your Chanter, or Ranger, and summon away!  A total of 6! creatures (are there more?) before the Chanter summons become active...fun, fun, fun!

 

This is allowed, but not pre-buffing?

That's a very good question.

[WebShaman]

Let us run 6 Rangers, with 3 figurines.

 

What is that, 18 party members in all?

 

Gaaaah!

[KDubya]

 

No, the purpose of pre-buffing in IE games was to make you stronger so you can win. That's it

Oh, I wouldn't say that.

 

Pre-buffing can be a LOT more meaningful than simply "making you stronger". And I'll give you a very common example. Invisibility. Invisibility is an IE game pre-buff. But it doesn't make you stronger. Instead, it simply opens up new tactical avenues. It allows for optimal positioning. It sets up your Thief. It places your Fighter in front of the Enemy's mage so that when the fight begins, that mage is instantly put into a melee situation. And no, PoE's pathetic excuse for Stealth is not a valid substitute, because it doesn't work that way at all.

 

And then there's Protection from Evil. In BG2, Protection from evil is more than a buff that makes you stronger. It's a buff that nullifies an enemy's demon summoning spells. it forces that demon to ignore you, allowing you to focus your efforts on the enemy itself, instead of the enemy's summon.

 

We are denied these tactical options in PoE, NOT because of "balance" (or whatever the preferred argument on this thread currently is) but because Josh Sawyer thinks that pre-buffing is Rote, and that Combat should be more quick and 'actiony'. <gag>

 

 

Pre-buffing in BG results in godmode when done correctly if you have mage spells. Improved invisibility plus a few spell immunities divination makes you always invisible and immune to targeting by spells. Throw in SI: abjuration, protection from energy, protection from evil, a spell shield , globes of invulnerability and so on and the base game AI can not touch you. You need SCS and SCS II to get mages to use anti-magic spells properly. These mods also allow your enemies to prebuff as well. Check out the no=reload threads on Bioware's BG legacy forum and read up on Alessia (sp?) and her solo no reload beatdowns. In one example it would have taken seven ruby rays of reversal to start to drop the buffs and this was in Ascension Final battle.

 

I for one am glad that the pre-buffing arms race is cancelled in this game.

 

Now you can hit the enemy priest or mage before the game changing buffs are up. If they were all pre-buffrd to the max at the start it would be crazy. Not allowing the enemy to pre-buff while allowing you to do so would totally break immersion and make no sense.

 

Another problem would be for the game AI to figure out which buffs to use. Better to balance the base saves and abilities of the monsters without taking pre-buffs into account and then just balance the spells for both player and monster.

 

If you can pre-buff then the smart move is to always pre-buff. This wastes your spell resources and promotes sleeping every other fight. If you choose not to pre-buff and get rolled then you just save scum and repeat with the proper pre-buffs.

 

How would the ability and requirement of pre-buffing increase the tactical choices in the game or improve the game experience?

[NathanH]

As has been pointed out many times already in the thread, there are more options than "no pre-buffing at all" vs "pre-buffing exactly as it was in BG2 in every way".

 

As an example, durations are sufficiently short that you can't put 25 buffs on everyone because they would all run out.

Edited April 11, 2015 by NathanH