Why is the answer so obvious? Is it because it makes sense? Is it because we've seen the scenario a thousand times already and know how it plays out?

 

If the right answer is so obvious then why isn't that an available option for players to start combat with? Why must the player, like a solo spellcaster, be forced into choosing option 1, 2, or 3 to start combat with any enemy? Why have we been content to sit back and sign it off as "oh, well, that's just how it is?"

 

I don't mind some abilities being restricted to combat-only. I agree that many should be combat-only in fact. What I do mind is that I have no way to simply declare a state of mutual combat so that I can cast that in-combat-only ability as my first action instead of having to suffer the recovery frames from a senseless ranged attack or become too close to the enemy and allow them to declare combat.

 

Solution?

 

A Declare Combat button. By pressing the button while highlighting an enemy or friendly unit within range (open to suggestions) a state of combat is declared. Both the enemy and the player are drawn into combat as though a physical aggression against them were made. From an immersion or lore sense this could be achieved by suggesting the enemy became alerted to your presence by a shout, your weapon became unsheathed and you assumed a combatitive posture, or even that some choice dialogue had taken place. It could even be named the "Draw Weapons" button or "Shout" button. Whatever. I mean... this state of immediate combat is already made able to be declared through dialogue choices. Saying something aggressive in a dialogue choice doesn't require you or the enemy to make a physical attack to start combat.

 

I am submitting this in the technical support forum as, after consideration, I truly believe the lack of this mechanic is an actual issue with the game. I've spent several "hours" in recovery frames that were counterproductive to my cause. It makes no sense whatsoever that the player has to sacrifice distance or that the player has to sacrifice recovery time to start combat where an enemy has to do neither and instead gets to take their ideal first action from their safe distance. This makes little to no difference for large parties- I'd actually prefer to open with a beefy archer ranged attack so that I can land a strong preemptive blow! And once combat is started with that arrow landing using my ideal first spell with my caster. With a solo spellcaster though you're not benefitting from a weak ranged attack as your opening move. You're not benefitting from forcing yourself to get close to the enemy, sometimes even immediately within melee range due to small rooms or corners or teleporting enemies. This isn't just restricted to solo spellcasters though it hits them the hardest. A lot of solo adventurers could benefit from the mechanic that's already used by enemies but not even an option to the player.

 

You're a solo adventurer and see a group of 5 enemies? You know your first priority against this group is using your figurine for a summon? Well you'd best get close to the enemy to alert them, or perform a ranged attack and pray you have a low recovery so you have enough time to use your item before the enemies have teleported to you, peppered you with arrows, cast all forms of spells, or simply closed enough distance that they'll still engage you once the summon is cast (if you're lucky to afford that much time even). Because these are your options. Or, hey, why not just declare combat with a button and be able to take your first action, how you see fit, in a combat state with the enemy?

 

Again- this isn't an issue with abilities or items being only available during combat. That's a whole other arena of debate. Items like scrolls of stealth should be allowed to be used outside of combat. I understand the restrictions in almost all other cases. This is an issue with having to take unwanted actions or place yourself in unrealistic distances of an enemy just to start the combat state. This is an issue with not having a means to start combat without an action against both friendly and hostile npcs. If dialogue can start combat without action, if enemies can start combat without action, why can't the player? This is a reiteration of a previous post that I have chosen to abandon as I communicated the idea poorly.

 

Thank you.

Edited April 12, 201510 yr by XxDarkonxX

The old problem with the "combat only thing" during the beta was something near what you explain here. Stealth is concerned, too. It may not be a "combat only" problem for you, but, without the combat only thing, this problem would not exist at all. This mechanic came for both gameplay reasons and technical reasons (problems with persisting bugs in save games). The problem is, in fact, that you should be able to engage combat the way you want. Not sure if the combat button (like in fallout 1/2) is a good workaround. Would need a dev point here, to be sure. But for what i see, this topic will last long. I'm agree with your concerns, many others will agree too.

Thank you Abel.

 

I've started reading a lot on the player input around "combat-only" and can agree with a lot that's said. I can also play the devil's advocate loosely in a lot of those scenarios. Questions like "what happens to per encounter spells outside of combat?" and "what happens to chanter verse counters outside of combat?" are very good points that would likely take a large amount of theorycrafting. In it's current state though the only solution I can see is a declare combat button as it'd allow users to: use currently combat-only abilities as an opening move, start an encounter for per encounter abilities, and more. Maybe with a little tweaking it could even be the ideal solution to the big "combat-only" debate.

 

For that maybe the combat declaration button could even be... delayed? You could initiate the combat state by the press of the button while highlighting the enemy but the combat state starts like, what, 10-?? seconds before drawing the enemy into combat? Chanters would only be able to store 1-2 verses, prebuffs could be cast with a strategic time-limit window, per encounter abilities would count toward the encounter, etc. All of this would require very little change to the current system and the coding around it.

 

In short? It wouldn't be perfect but it would be leaps and bounds better than what we have.

 

At the very least I'd still like to see the button to fix my current problems. Even with the "combat only" abilities the way they are I still shouldn't have to have my solo spellcaster attack with a 12m bow, and suffer recovery frames, just to initiate the combat state with a group of enemies. It's completely counter to my initial vision of a caster to have to use a bow or a gun simply because of a 2m advantage over even a wand.. and both being horrible means anyway for starting combat with a group of enemies. I could work with the "combat only" system despite how awful it is if only I could at least declare combat and not be forced into illogically throwing away my initiative by taking senseless action.

Edited April 12, 201510 yr by XxDarkonxX

I don't really like the idea of a "declare combat" button, but it should be possible to cast "combat only" spells while not in combat if doing so would begin combat (for example, if the spell will hit an enemy).

I think for me the solution you presented wouldn't solve a lot in the long run as I'd still be forced to initiate combat with an action. Being a chanter (and I'm sure other solo classes could run into this as well) I don't have an immediate supply of per encounter or even per rest castings. So in your suggestion I'd be able to start combat with a scroll, or maybe a figurine summon if they worked the details out in that scenario, but it wouldn't be a viable solution for me once my inventory of castings is exhausted. In my current save I could probably start combat about 5 times that way before I'd be right back where I started and tugging on bow strings to initiate a combat state.

 

But that is still 5 more times than I could now.

 

It'd still be a step in the right direction though. Every person has their own idea of what is best or what will work or what will not. What's most important to me is that we can recognize that there is no outside publisher stress for obsidian to design a game in a specific fashion. If enough people can come to an agreement on one suggestion then we can help solidify that suggestion as an actual mechanic. We all have a voice and it's louder than a few nameplates.

Heh I typed a reply to a post but had hit the back button. Thought I was posting in a 1.03 bug tracker thread. Ignore this comment lol

Edited April 12, 201510 yr by XxDarkonxX