No buffing outside of combat, why?

[Stun]

That doesn't change the fact that pre-combat buffing is never a negative.

What? Sure it is. If your Priest can only cast his Third level spells 4 times a day, and you expend 2 of those instances on pre-buffs, then when the fight starts he will only be able to cast two 3rd level spells. And If your wizard buffs himself with Protection from Magic weapons before a fight, then that Protection will expire sooner than if he cast it after the fight started. This is no Brainer stuff. Have you ever played the IE games?

 

But the real problem with PoE's ridiculous NO-PREBUFFING! rule is that it totally removes preparation from the equation. Once upon a time, pre-fight planning was something that a good General does. Now we're reduced to just reacting...like in any mundane action RPG. <gag>

 

 

And the "but fights would need to be balanced around it!" is about the dumbest retort ever. Especially considering what we ended up getting in PoE. 99% of the Fights are brainlessly easy already. If they upped the difficulty about 4 notches then gave us the ability to pre-buff, nothing would change. Except maybe people would suddenly realize that the encounter in front of them is actually a *fight*, instead of just another speedbump on the road.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Stun

[Kal Adan]

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.

I am talking about an argument pro-pre-buffer sympathist made to prove that no-pre-buffs in PoE are wrong: because in PnP (in DnD setting) the GM couldn't forbid players to pre-buff themselves. Truth is, you don't pre-buff yourself prior to each encounter - or prior opening every single door - because you can't predict or spot all encounters before they happen and if you do pre-buff youselves like that you're going to run out of pre-buffs and end up being in a worse situation overall, because the GM won't allow you to sleep that often. That's the point I am making.

[endolex]

 

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.

I am talking about an argument pro-pre-buffer sympathist made to prove that no-pre-buffs in PoE are wrong: because in PnP (in DnD setting) the GM couldn't forbid players to pre-buff themselves. Truth is, you don't pre-buff yourself prior to each encounter - or prior opening every single door - because you can't predict or spot all encounters before they happen and if you do pre-buff youselves like that you're going to run out of pre-buffs and end up being in a worse situation overall, because the GM won't allow you to sleep that often. That's the point I am making.

 

 

Yes, but how where does your assumption "GM does not forbid it" = "players pre-buff themselves prior to each encounter" come from?

[Kal Adan]

It's not an assumption. This system has been made as a reaction to what people did in the past.

[NathanH]

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.

No! No! No!

 

If the underlying design problem is "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming", and you apply most of your buffs consistently, then a pre-buff interface addresses the underlying design problem elegantly and efficiently. It's not a kludge.

 

If the underlying design problem is "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming", and you apply many different buff strategies over the course of a single dungeon, then a pre-buff interface is unlikely to be a solution.

 

If the underlying design problem is other than "pre-buffing is tedious an time-consuming", then a pre-buff interfaction is not a solution.

 

In the last two cases the pre-buff interface isn't a kludge because it doesn't solve the underlying problem.

 

I don't like to push this as much as I am, because it's just a tangential comment anyway, but it's tedious that essentially simple points that I'm making are being consistently misunderstood. Allow me to provide a clear example.

 

I am playing NWN2. I have a post-rest buff strategy that consists of: apply all of my 1 hour/level abilities on my preferred targets for them. I have a pre-tough-encounter buff strategy of: consistently apply a collection of 1 minute/level abilities on my preferred targets for them. A wholly-reasonable criticism of this mechanic, that has been used throughout this thread, is that in NWN2 (or BG2, or whatever) this is annoying because casting all of those spells is tedious and time-consuming. In fact I stopped playing NWN2 precisely because of this! A pre-buffing macro solves this problem elegantly and efficiently. I simply set up my two strategies once in the macro interface, and fire them whenever I want. This should be no longer tedious or time-consuming.

 

There are many other wholly-reasonable criticism of the pre-buffing mechanics in this particular example. There are many wholly-plausible pre-buffing mechanics that do not conform to this example. But these are irrelevant to my comment.

 

So what is my point? My point is that the argument "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" can be addressed if that is the only reason to avoid pre-buffing.

Edited April 10, 2015 by NathanH

[Stun]

I am talking about an argument pro-pre-buffer sympathist made to prove that no-pre-buffs in PoE are wrong: because in PnP (in DnD setting) the GM couldn't forbid players to pre-buff themselves. Truth is, you don't pre-buff yourself prior to each encounter - or prior opening every single door - because you can't predict or spot all encounters before they happen and if you do pre-buff youselves like that you're going to run out of pre-buffs and end up being in a worse situation overall, because the GM won't allow you to sleep that often. That's the point I am making.

This (falsely) assumes the need to prebuff before every encounter. Which would indeed be a stupid and tedious design. Thankfully, no one is asking for this. Nor did you need to do such a thing in the IE games (or any other RPG that lets you pre-buff.), Instead, you had situations. The good games gave you hints that an unusually difficult encounter was pending. For example, the final seal fights in BG2's Watcher's Keep. They were the level's Guardians. And you knew (because the game told you) that if you clicked on the seal, they would appear and then you'd be put to the test.

 

So *good* Players prepared, while the lazy (or clueless) demographic didn't. Consequently, the former were rewarded for their vigilance and planning with a satisfying, competitive, winnable fight. While the latter were handed their asses on a plate, then subjected to the reload screen.

 

And again, the difference here is planning vs. reacting. Any good rpg that claims to offer true tactical combat depth should give you that choice. Why doesn't PoE?

Edited April 10, 2015 by Stun

[Shadenuat]

I think just a limit on how many buffs can one character carry would have worked, even if it's not "immersive", but there's a lot of design decisions in PoE in that style (1 trap per character for example). Then they would be like cards in deck you prepare before combat, and enemies could have a script that would fire up something of their own too.

 

Still it's about moving your resources between strategical and tactical pools outside of combat, instantly, and I guess it can be hard to balance. On the other hand, PoE doesn't have hard counters and it's buffs are also not that strong, so I don't think it would have mattered if some players rushed in combat under Armor of Faith. Also, unlike IE game you can't restscum without buying more camping supplies so that might make players save their spell slots, which they probably do.

Before they turn per-encounter of course... which would be a stick in a wheel of any pre-buffing system.

[NathanH]

I guess it is reasonable enough to limit per-encounter buffs to combat only. It won't satisfy the extreme simulationists but then per-encounter abilities don't by default. You can also make the per-encounter abilities reset only at the end of combat, so you can use a per-encounter buff to pre-buff, but you have to "pay for it" by not having your full complement once the encounter starts. I would favour just disallowing them out of combat, though. Simpler and safer.

 

You'd have to try it out, but the durations on the buffs seem sufficiently short that you'd only really be able to fire off one or maybe two before combat started and still get decent use out of them, so I also wouldn't worry too much about that aspect in PoEt.

 

What would we do about Ciphers? Combat-only OK for them?

Edited April 10, 2015 by NathanH

[PrimeJunta]

So what is my point? My point is that the argument "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" can be addressed if that is the only reason to avoid pre-buffing.

 

Sure. And all I'm saying it is that addressing it by tacking on a pre-buffing macro is kludgy.

[Kal Adan]

This (falsely) assumes the need to prebuff before every encounter.

It's less about them needing to pre-buff and more about them being able to as a rule ("In any true RPG I can do this, so I should be able to do this in this one, or this isn't a true RPG" kind of argument). I am not against pre-buffing as such, but I think the game lacks good system to make it more meaningful than just being tiresome for those who use spells left and right.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Kal Adan

[Shadenuat]

I guess it is reasonable enough to limit per-encounter buffs to combat only.

It's just that whole levels 1&2 of per rest spells for all 3 classic casters in PoE turn per-encounter at levels 9&11.

[Luckmann]

 

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.

I am talking about an argument pro-pre-buffer sympathist made to prove that no-pre-buffs in PoE are wrong: because in PnP (in DnD setting) the GM couldn't forbid players to pre-buff themselves. Truth is, you don't pre-buff yourself prior to each encounter - or prior opening every single door - because you can't predict or spot all encounters before they happen and if you do pre-buff youselves like that you're going to run out of pre-buffs and end up being in a worse situation overall, because the GM won't allow you to sleep that often. That's the point I am making.

 

 

As a largely irrelevant point, I must say that a GM could definitely forbid the players to pre-buff themselves. And if he did, I'd call him an idiot, flip the table and leave the session, but.. actually.. I think I'm making a pretty good point here, nevermind.

 

 

I wouldn't actually flip the table, but I wouldn't play at it. There's plenty of insane GM:s and there's no reason to play with any of them.

 

 

 

This (falsely) assumes the need to prebuff before every encounter.

It's less about them needing pre-buff and more about them being able to as a rule ("In any true RPG I can do this, so I should be able to do this in this one, or this isn't a true RPG" kind of argument). I am not against pre-buffing as such, but I think the game lacks good system to make it more meaningful than just being tiresome for those who use spells left and right.

 

Why? Why would it be tiresome to pre-buff? You wouldn't be able to use more than 1-2 at best, because of the short durations, and you'd not want to do it, most of the time, because you'd be expending limited resources to do it, and if it's not worth your time, don't do it.

 

Even if all "Combat Only" flags disappeared from the game today, it would not alter the way I play the game in any major way. This is partly because nearly all battles amount to tank-and-spank with the tactical depth of shallow petri dish, but at the end of the day it's mostly because I would not want to expend the time, effort and resources it would consume.

 

 

I guess it is reasonable enough to limit per-encounter buffs to combat only.

It's just that whole levels 1&2 of per rest spells for all 3 classic casters in PoE turn per-encounter at levels 9&11.

 

This is a whole 'nother can of worms, really. It *is* however a valid argument, in that it'll give free range to cast rank 1 and 2 buffs at those levels. But as I've said earlier, that system needs to die, it's fundamentally unbalanced and broken, whether we take buffs into consideration or not. Even if we assume that the expansions will add only 2-4 levels, that will give all casters access to four uses of each rank, of any spells of ranks 1-4, per encounter.

 

It's so insane there's no words for it, and it has nothing to do with buffs or pre-buffs. So it needs to die either way, and then it'll no longer be an issue in regards to buffs, either - and at this point, that'd just be gravy.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Luckmann

[NathanH]

 

So what is my point? My point is that the argument "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming" can be addressed if that is the only reason to avoid pre-buffing.

 

Sure. And all I'm saying it is that addressing it by tacking on a pre-buffing macro is kludgy.

 

Earlier you said it was kludgy because "It's a tacked-on feature which adds complexity without addressing the underlying design problem". But now you have accepted that, if the underlying design problem is agreed to be "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming", it addresses the underlying design problem. Please address your inconsistency.

[PrimeJunta]

That's not the underlying design problem. That's a symptom of the underlying design problem.

[Kal Adan]

Why? Why would it be tiresome to pre-buff? You wouldn't be able to use more than 1-2 at best, because of the short durations, and you'd not want to do it, most of the time, because you'd be expending limited resources to do it, and if it's not worth your time, don't do it.

You're missing the point. Problem ain't - from my perspective - that it'd be tiresome to pre-buff. Problem is the system does not convince the player (especially the one used to rest-spamming and spell-spamming) to play better in other way than discouraging him (in an annoying way, thus simply annoying him). Good system should either straight up punish the bad play (like Souls' series do: there is no room for mistakes, because punishment for failure is going back to square one) or encourage change.

 

For example: I'd like to play without being able to save/load, but the way the engagements are made it's either them or us. And if it's us, then it's over. It encourages the foreknowledge (because otherwise your journey would end in a bear's pit: there is no way of gauging the difficulty gap between encounters) and using full arsenal of your spells per each encounter (thus, indirectly, rest-spamming; going back and forth between locations to take camping supplies). Just in case. Because otherwise you'll die and all progress will be lost. I find this a huge flaw from the design perspective, because this does opposite to what was expected: I will either do something the designers didn't want me to do or I will not use the mode entirely (beating the purpose of having such mode in the first place).

[NathanH]

That's not the underlying design problem. That's a symptom of the underlying design problem.

As I have said many times, my posts have been addressing the criticism "pre-buffing is tedious and time-consuming". If your criticism is deeper than that, then a pre-buffing interface option is clearly not a solution.

 

The goal of my posts is to eliminate the posts saying "No pre-buffing! It is tedious and time-consuming!". Alternative criticisms of pre-buffing, in any of its forms, remain welcome.

Edited April 10, 2015 by NathanH

[NathanH]

 

Why? Why would it be tiresome to pre-buff? You wouldn't be able to use more than 1-2 at best, because of the short durations, and you'd not want to do it, most of the time, because you'd be expending limited resources to do it, and if it's not worth your time, don't do it.

You're missing the point. Problem ain't - from my perspective - that it'd be tiresome to pre-buff. Problem is the system does not convince the player (especially the one used to rest-spamming and spell-spamming) to play better in other way than discouraging him (in an annoying way, thus simply annoying him). Good system should either straight up punish the bad play (like Souls' series do: there is no room for mistakes, because punishment for failure is going back to square one) or encourage change.

 

For example: I'd like to play without being able to save/load, but the way the engagements are made it's either them or us. And if it's us, then it's over. It encourages the foreknowledge (because otherwise your journey would end in a bear's pit: there is no way of gauging the difficulty gap between encounters) and using full arsenal of your spells per each encounter (thus, indirectly, rest-spamming; going back and forth between locations to take camping supplies). Just in case. Because otherwise you'll die and all progress will be lost. I find this a huge flaw from the design perspective, because this does opposite to what was expected: I will either do something the designers didn't want me to do or I will not use the mode entirely (beating the purpose of having such mode in the first place).

 

Hmm, it is probably true that pre-buffing could interfere with Iron Man.This opinion will probably annoy you, but I don't think that a large RPG should worry about whether Iron Man is winnable.

[Kal Adan]

I am not questioning whether Iron Man is winnable or not (although I think it's winnable. Only it'll take a lot more time - or foreknowledge - to win). I am questioning what results it does produce due to mechanics that are in game. You could apply this to a normal game without Iron Man. You died to an encounter? Load a save and buff yourself (or pre-buff, since that's the name of the thread). All Iron Man does is amplifying the problem, because it's not just "load a save" but "make a new character and sacrifice X minutes/hours/days to reach the spot you died", etc.

[Caerdon]

So... I haven't followed this thread much since the beginning, but I was alerted back to it by a bunch of likes I've gotten the past couple of days - and those likes are what make me feel a bit of a turncoat right now, but... oh well.

 

Let it never be said that I'm not man enough to admit it when I'm wrong.

 

Now, this isn't an issue I've ever had particularly strong feelings about, but the fact is I never liked the kind of pre-buffing BG2 especially allowed you to do (though I rarely did it myself), and I guess this largely explains my attitude towards it in PoE so far. However, Luckmann and PrimeJunta in particular have made some excellent points about how things are different in PoE, and hell, you guys are right. For numerous reasons, like the (soft) limits to resting, short buff durations, lack of save-or-die stuff etc. I don't see allowing pre-buffing in PoE lead to significant negative consequences. Would allowing it lead to significant positive consequences? Maybe not, but I guess no one likes arbitrary restrictions.

 

Thanks for showing me the error of my ways.

 

As you were.

[View619]

Funny enough, pre-buffing and removal of the combat-only state would actually make defensive mage spells useful. As they are now, there's no point in wasting a spell slot on a Wizard's Double or Stoneskin as a pre-caution against being attacked.

[WebShaman]

Again, funny thread.

 

Pre-buffing is already in the game - these are the consumables (which I personally detest, because they are done just like the old buffs - click, wait, click, wait, for EACH character buffing) and in passive abilities that provide either single or party bonuses (ala Paladin abilities, etc).

 

Kind of funny to hear "I don't want Pre-Buffing in PoE!!!  Glad it is not in!" when it is already in.

 

Not only that, but one can get somewhat around the limitations as the one poster mentioned, by sending a scout way up front, aggro the X, and then have it dash back to the group which of course is positioning, buffing, laying down X for the coming m0bs.  This is basically what I do.  It is also tedious, and somewhat boring, but it works.

 

I somewhat agree with PrimeJunta here - it is a better mechanic to use passive abilities, etc instead of click-click-click.  So instead of having a Pre-Buff button that one can program (so to speak), easier to have passive abilities that are always active (no push button).  Like in DA - they should however put a strain on resources (like lowering Endurance, Con, whatever, as in DA it lowered the amount of Mana available for other options, etc).

 

However, there is a push button, Buff system in D&D, of course.  It is the Contingency and Co. spells, that allow one to actually pre-load up some spells as buffs, etc and go to town with the press of a button!  Would have been really nice in PoE if the Wizard had this IMHO.  I think that would go a long way towards re-establishing the Class.

 

As for those wondering why one would not wish to Pre-Buff before every encounter, real or imagined :  well, there is a mechanic made to address this issue (several, in fact).  Short-lasting buffs, obviously, combined with the impossibility of replenishing spells/abilities/etc and one has to start rationing resources.  It is basically how one deals with most PG type play.

 

DMZ areas, where Pre-Buffs get blown off and areas where magic works sporadically and/or strangely (so...those Pre-Buffs could turn into something else!).

 

And so on.

 

And quite contrary to what has been posted here, I do not Pre-Buff alot in BG/BG2 EE.  Only when it is needed - because, as noted, it is tedious to do so (don't need it for m0bs, but do need it for a Dragon, etc).

 

I personally would love to see a Beholder in PoE = dead party.  No Pre-Buffs...hehe....hooboy.  So we will never see this monster in PoE (sadly enough, I really like the challenge they provided in BG2 and NWN).

 

So, to sum it up :

 

Short-term buffs combined with limited replenishing of resources = ration your resources wisely.  I think that pretty much makes sense, no?

[Noer]

I hate the "no buffing before combat" for one simple reason. It is fuc illogical.

Imagine a party of experienced adventurers lurking through deep dungeon and smelling burnt bodies and seeing wrecked animals.

There is no power in the whole universe that would stop them from drinking potion or two before moving towards just to jump on a surprised sleeping dragon.

And for the enemies it shoudlnt be particullary hard to implement things like spell sequencer (see bg2 creature: lich) or potions which are drunk by enemy and giving them multiple bonuses at the start of fight.

Example:

The inventory is divided into things that you wear (and they are given attribute bool dropable = 1) and the rest in the 'magical invisible backpack' called useble items which are given attribute bool dropable = 0
You enter a fight -> enemy uses items in useable items (based for example (if party is 0 mages drink potion 1 if party is mage drink potion 2 if party is archers drink potion 3 whatever) and enemy is boosted as well as your party and the biggest thing: enemies potions could be like "potion of speed"+ "potion of deflection"+"potion of godliness" in one potion (even if u killed enemy before he drink it - he would not drop it so you would not benefit and actually you woudlnt even know that he had such a potion so it would be logical))

[Horrorscope]

Are some struggling with the Easy setting?

[Crowmeat]

I hate the "no buffing before combat" for one simple reason. It is fuc illogical.

 

Imagine a party of experienced adventurers lurking through deep dungeon and smelling burnt bodies and seeing wrecked animals.

There is no power in the whole universe that would stop them from drinking potion or two before moving towards just to jump on a surprised sleeping dragon.

And for the enemies it shoudlnt be particullary hard to implement things like spell sequencer (see bg2 creature: lich) or potions which are drunk by enemy and giving them multiple bonuses at the start of fight.

 

Example:

The inventory is divided into things that you wear (and they are given attribute bool dropable = 1) and the rest in the 'magical invisible backpack' called useble items which are given attribute bool dropable = 0

You enter a fight -> enemy uses items in useable items (based for example (if party is 0 mages drink potion 1 if party is mage drink potion 2 if party is archers drink potion 3 whatever) and enemy is boosted as well as your party and the biggest thing: enemies potions could be like "potion of speed"+ "potion of deflection"+"potion of godliness" in one potion (even if u killed enemy before he drink it - he would not drop it so you would not benefit and actually you woudlnt even know that he had such a potion so it would be logical))

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.  

 

Having to prioritize which order of buffs you want is important and useful and gives some reactivity to the combat that isn't particularly reactive, thanks to the engagement system making a more static defense line a really, really good strategy.  

[Voss]

Funny you should bring up the paladin in argument against pre-buffing, since Faith and Conviction is an auto-cast buff rather than an inherent bonus.

 

But no, your argument isn't logical.  That you're better able to do things when you're under pressure and/or in pain rather than when you're calm and relaxed is inherently nonsense.  As for gods responding to prayers... they don't seem to have issues with their priests calming them whores, so I doubt very much they have issues with the priest not being in danger.  Nor do they have issue with someone starting combat by asking the deity to set people on fire.