No buffing outside of combat, why?

[Matt516]

The main issue is because a lot of people think it's bad for game balance.

 

In short: if you allow prebuffing, then you either A) balance everything with that in mind, punishing all those who don't want to go trought the tedious (and rather brainless) routine of prebuffing before every fight, or B) balance everything as if it didn't exist, which would make fights trivially easy when you do prebuff.

 

Pretty much this. If you allow prebuffing (and really long duration buffs, as a lot of people have also requested), you get the "buff checklist", which is tedious and somewhat brainless.

[NathanH]

 

The main issue is because a lot of people think it's bad for game balance.

 

In short: if you allow prebuffing, then you either A) balance everything with that in mind, punishing all those who don't want to go trought the tedious (and rather brainless) routine of prebuffing before every fight, or B) balance everything as if it didn't exist, which would make fights trivially easy when you do prebuff.

 

Pretty much this. If you allow prebuffing (and really long duration buffs, as a lot of people have also requested), you get the "buff checklist", which is tedious and somewhat brainless.

 

Well, as mentioned above several times and noted in your post, this is only the case if we have both pre-buffing and long buffs. Currently we have neither. Arguing against adding one because adding both would be bad is wrong.

 

It's also worth pointing out once again that the tedium aspect of pre-buffing can be overcome trivially by a pre-buffing interface. Many roguelikes have such a feature. For instance, one can imagine a screen why you specify all the buffs you want to apply to all your characters on-rest.

[PrimeJunta]

That's real kludgy though.

 

Long-term buffs needed to go. Put stuff like that on items instead.

[NathanH]

That's real kludgy though.

An odd comment. A pre-buffing interface seems like an elegant solution to the problem "it is tedious and time consuming to pre-buff".

 

Other arguments against pre-buffing exist. But "tedious and time-consuming" is trivial to overcome.

[PrimeJunta]

It's kludgy because it's solving a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place.

[NathanH]

It's kludgy because it's solving a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place.

I think this is a poor argument. If one's only dislike for pre-buffing is "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" then pre-buffing convenience functions are possible and address this dislike. Thus, the argument "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" is removed from the discussion. Progress is made.

 

If you believe pre-buffing is a problem for other reasons, then you simply use those arguments instead. But you don't try to use the "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" argument to help you, because it has been demonstrated that there is no need for this.

Edited April 10, 2015 by NathanH

[endolex]

 

It's kludgy because it's solving a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place.

I think this is a poor argument. If one's only dislike for pre-buffing is "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" then pre-buffing convenience functions are possible and address this dislike. Thus, the argument "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" is removed from the discussion. Progress is made.

 

If you believe pre-buffing is a problem for other reasons, then you simply use those arguments instead. But you don't try to use the "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" argument to help you, because it has been demonstrated that there is no need for this.

 

 

I'm actually with PrimaJunta on this one. I prefer to have pre-buffing as a encounter-to-encounter tactical option, not as a general tactical necessity that needs regular automation support (which would really somewhat defy the purpose, except if you really *want* an additional "buffing logistics minigame" mechanic, which I don't care about). Also, it would be a quite some extra work to create such an interface.

Edited April 10, 2015 by endolex

[NathanH]

 

 

It's kludgy because it's solving a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place.

I think this is a poor argument. If one's only dislike for pre-buffing is "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" then pre-buffing convenience functions are possible and address this dislike. Thus, the argument "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" is removed from the discussion. Progress is made.

 

If you believe pre-buffing is a problem for other reasons, then you simply use those arguments instead. But you don't try to use the "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" argument to help you, because it has been demonstrated that there is no need for this.

 

 

I'm actually with PrimaJunta on this one. I prefer to have pre-buffing as a encounter-to-encounter tactical option, not as a general tactical necessity that needs regular automation support (which would really somewhat defy the purpose, except if you really *want* an additional "buffing logistics minigame" mechanic, which I don't care about). Also, it would be a quite some extra work to create such an interface.

 

If your pre-buffing activity isn't a general tactical necessity that needs regular automation support then it is almost by definition not "tedious and time consuming" so doesn't need to defend itself against the criticism that it's "tedious and time consuming" to begin with.

 

I simply address the argument "pre-buffing is necessarily tedious and time consuming".

 

It should be noted in passing that my counter-argument fails in the case where very many different large pre-buffing regimes are needed.

 

To be honest I never intended this to be more than a passing comment. But it was worth comment: the "tedious and time-consuming" argument is fundamentally a quality of life issue and should be considered quite different to the other gameplay mechanics issues. For instance, the "tedious and time-consuming" wouldn't even hold for PoEt as it stands, because PoEt buffs are too short to cast very many anyway.

Edited April 10, 2015 by NathanH

[endolex]

If your pre-buffing activity isn't a general tactical necessity that needs regular automation support then it is almost by definition not "tedious and time consuming" so doesn't need to defend itself against the criticism that it's "tedious and time consuming" to begin with.

 

 

I simply address the argument "pre-buffing is necessarily tedious and time consuming".

 

It should be noted in passing that my counter-argument fails in the case where very many different large pre-buffing regimes are needed.

 

 

I see Well, I prefer the first argument - it's not tedious, because no one forces you to do it just because it's possible.

[NathanH]

 

If your pre-buffing activity isn't a general tactical necessity that needs regular automation support then it is almost by definition not "tedious and time consuming" so doesn't need to defend itself against the criticism that it's "tedious and time consuming" to begin with.

 

 

I simply address the argument "pre-buffing is necessarily tedious and time consuming".

 

It should be noted in passing that my counter-argument fails in the case where very many different large pre-buffing regimes are needed.

 

 

I see Well, I prefer the first argument - it's not tedious, because no one forces you to do it just because it's possible.

 

This would be true if they just, say, allowed pre-buffing in PoEt but didn't change the balance. As a "global" argument for games of this type it's going to be a bit more controversial, because it depends on how the game has been made. For instance, if I made a game of this type, I'd be balancing my final-boss encounter in a dungeon on the assumption of significant pre-buffing, so in a game I made you'd typically be obliged to do some, and so I'd be obliged to create some quality-of-life improvements to help you do this comfortably.

Edited April 10, 2015 by NathanH

[endolex]

 

 

If your pre-buffing activity isn't a general tactical necessity that needs regular automation support then it is almost by definition not "tedious and time consuming" so doesn't need to defend itself against the criticism that it's "tedious and time consuming" to begin with.

 

 

 

 

I simply address the argument "pre-buffing is necessarily tedious and time consuming".

 

It should be noted in passing that my counter-argument fails in the case where very many different large pre-buffing regimes are needed.

 

 

I see Well, I prefer the first argument - it's not tedious, because no one forces you to do it just because it's possible.

This would be true if they just, say, allowed pre-buffing in PoEt but didn't change the balance. As a "global" argument for games of this type it's going to be a bit more controversial, because it depends on how the game has been made. For instance, if I made a game of this type, I'd be balancing my final-boss encounter in a dungeon on the assumption of significant pre-buffing, so in a game I made you'd typically be obliged to do some, and so I'd be obliged to create some quality-of-life improvements to help you do this comfortably.

This is what I just don't get. What if I don't even have a priest in my party because I don't play one and hate Durance for RP reasons? Should the game forbid me from being able to defeat this boss then? A lot in PoE is about choice, and it shows in gameplay as well. If I choose to play without buffing much, instead focusing on control/debuffing and doing lots of damage fast, that is a valid strategy. And if I want more or less difficulty, I have a slider for that.

[Kal Adan]

For instance, if I made a game of this type, I'd be balancing my final-boss encounter in a dungeon on the assumption of significant pre-buffing, so in a game I made you'd typically be obliged to do some, and so I'd be obliged to create some quality-of-life improvements to help you do this comfortably.

Balancing game around (pre-)buffing means it's mandatory for anticipated overall experience. It also means you need someone to buff you. I like PoE system over going back to DnD. It doesn't really restrict you (you still can put buffs on yourself, only in combat) and isn't a requirement if you run with different setup than one basing on buffs.

[Luckmann]

The flawed assumption of course being that buffing is a consistent no-brainer choice that you'll do habitually before any encounter (or any major encounter).

Which is of course not true at all, not even in PoE today, even if we remove all the Combat Only flags this very moment, because buffing requires time, effort and resources, same as any other decision. The D&D-style issues of senseless pre-buff upon pre-buff simply do not exist as a problem.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Luckmann

[PrimeJunta]

 

It's kludgy because it's solving a problem that shouldn't be there in the first place.

I think this is a poor argument. If one's only dislike for pre-buffing is "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" then pre-buffing convenience functions are possible and address this dislike. Thus, the argument "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" is removed from the discussion. Progress is made.

 

If you believe pre-buffing is a problem for other reasons, then you simply use those arguments instead. But you don't try to use the "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" argument to help you, because it has been demonstrated that there is no need for this.

 

I would like pre-buffing to be re-introduced in P:E.

 

I would not like long-duration buffs to be re-introduced in P:E.

 

Long-duration buffs should be replaced by item enchantments or passive/modal abilities/talents. They do the same thing without introducing the tedium in the first place, so you don't need the automation you're proposing.

 

Adding a macro to get around a clunky mechanic is kludgy. Better not have the clunky mechanic in the first place, especially as less clunky ones are easily available.

[Kal Adan]

The flawed assumption of course being that buffing is a consistent no-brainer choice that you'll do habitually before any encounter (or any major encounter).

I am not talking about "flawed assumptions". I am talking about combat being balanced under pre-buffing and about people who argument: "Does in PnP [in DnD setting] the GM forbids his players to buff?". To which my answer is: you can't know that combat is going to happen unless you know about it, so can just as well spend all your spells on nothing and fight without them, because a GM will not allow you to rest per each door. Or you'll cast your buffs in combat, like in PoE. In both cases having pre-buffs is flawed in itself. You'd have to come up with different system altogether.

 

Which is of course not true at all, not even in PoE today, even if we remove all the Combat Only flags this very moment, because buffing requires time, effort and resources, same as any other decision. The D&D-style issues of senseless pre-buff upon pre-buff simply do not exist as a problem.

People will do it, even though it wouldn't be my problem (as a single-player player). That's exactly why designers decided against pre-buffs.

[NathanH]

Adding a macro to get around a clunky mechanic is kludgy. Better not have the clunky mechanic in the first place, especially as less clunky ones are easily available.

 

I will say it again: if the primary reason that the mechanic (pre-buffing with long-duration buffs) is clunky is "because it is tedious and time-consuming" then a macro system is not kludgy because it is an efficient and sensible solution to the problem: with such a macro system, pre-buffing with long-duration buffs is no longer tedious and time-consuming, so the mechanic is no longer clunky, and so the solution is efficient and elegant.

 

On the other hand, if the mechanic (pre-buffing with long duration buffs) is clunky because of other reasons then a macro system is not a solution so cannot be a kludgy solution because it is not a solution!

[PrimeJunta]

It's a solution, for sure, but still a kludge. It's a tacked-on feature which adds complexity without addressing the underlying design problem. That's what a kludge means.

[endolex]

 

Adding a macro to get around a clunky mechanic is kludgy. Better not have the clunky mechanic in the first place, especially as less clunky ones are easily available.

 

I will say it again: if the primary reason that the mechanic (pre-buffing with long-duration buffs) is clunky is "because it is tedious and time-consuming" then a macro system is not kludgy because it is an efficient and sensible solution to the problem: with such a macro system, pre-buffing with long-duration buffs is no longer tedious and time-consuming, so the mechanic is no longer clunky, and so the solution is efficient and elegant.

 

On the other hand, if the mechanic (pre-buffing with long duration buffs) is clunky because of other reasons then a macro system is not a solution so cannot be a kludgy solution because it is not a solution!

 

 

There no long duration buffs, however. And I don't want them, either.

[endolex]

 

The flawed assumption of course being that buffing is a consistent no-brainer choice that you'll do habitually before any encounter (or any major encounter).

I am not talking about "flawed assumptions". I am talking about combat being balanced under pre-buffing and about people who argument: "Does in PnP [in DnD setting] the GM forbids his players to buff?". To which my answer is: you can't know that combat is going to happen unless you know about it, so can just as well spend all your spells on nothing and fight without them, because a GM will not allow you to rest per each door. Or you'll cast your buffs in combat, like in PoE. In both cases having pre-buffs is flawed in itself. You'd have to come up with different system altogether.

 

Which is of course not true at all, not even in PoE today, even if we remove all the Combat Only flags this very moment, because buffing requires time, effort and resources, same as any other decision. The D&D-style issues of senseless pre-buff upon pre-buff simply do not exist as a problem.

People will do it, even though it wouldn't be my problem (as a single-player player). That's exactly why designers decided against pre-buffs.

 

 

You can't know when combat is going to happen? Yes you can. Either because you're storming a keep and are just one room away from the guy you want to kill, or simply because you are sneaky and spot enemies before they spot you.

The decision however whether you even want a priest in your party at all, and whether an enemy group is dangerous enough to require buffs, is the player's, not the games, and designers who otherwise seem to care a  great deal of freedom of choice and lack of 'required' minmaxing in this game should not feel they need to restrict spellcasting in this way. When I read 'combat only', I cringe. That is action adventure style ("I cannot use that in town", yay?), and not something worthy of a C-RPG, certainly not one that wants to be an heir to IE games.

[endolex]

Another solution perhaps: If devs want to give less incentive to players to use buffs before combat, just make base durations somewhat shorter (someone may have already suggested that here). That would make stacking of too many buffs pointless, and is a much more elegant thing to do than flagging spells with 'combat only'.

 

Another clue perhaps that this decision was not simply for imposing the dev's idea of 'fun' on players in this single question, but maybe indeed more for technical reasons.

Edited April 10, 2015 by endolex

[Hexo]

... Common situation: I see the enemy, or I know they're close. I would like to start with buffing and *then* enter combat, not the other way around, which every sane person would like to do. Why is this not possible? ...

 

It should be possible, and I've especially wanted this when playing wizard. It might be a small thing, but if Obsidian could somehow add this to the game that would be

[aenemic]

I hated pre-buffing and I'm glad to see it gone. With it, you'd have to expect when a challenging fight would happen, since they would be balanced around you buffing your party. And it would force you into trial and error situations, where you always have to feel a fight out to know what buffs you need.

[endolex]

I hated pre-buffing and I'm glad to see it gone. With it, you'd have to expect when a challenging fight would happen, since they would be balanced around you buffing your party. And it would force you into trial and error situations, where you always have to feel a fight out to know what buffs you need.

 

No, they wouldn't be "balanced" around it. Read the previous posts maybe. If you don't take a priest with you at all, you couldn't win any of those fights you seem to imagine, and that is simply not the case.

[mrmonocle]

I've been reporting a needed change in the prebuff mechanics since the first BB. No breach so far.

Edited April 10, 2015 by mrmonocle

[k1rage]

I liked pre-buffing and long term buffs

 

long term buffs were great simply because they were not tedious at all since you only had to put them on once and a while, in D&D i keep greater mage armor on at all times on my entire party for example