Does a lack of hard-counters/immunities help anything?

[Barleypaper]

So it's my understanding that Obsidian wanted to avoid 'puzzle encounters' where, once you knew the solution (e.g. Protection from Undead = dead lich) the fight it trivialized. They didn't want people to get wrecked the first time around, reload, then crush the opposition with a giant meta-knowledge hammer.

 

This is a somewhat controversial goal which, nonetheless, could be part of a respectable game design philosophy. But that's not what I want to talk about here.

 

Consider the following scenarios:

1) You fight a fire elemental, he's immune to fire. Your usual strategy of hurling flaming balls at stuff doesn't work! What do you do? Well, you kill it with swords. Ok, you hadn't sharpened your swords so it's tricky, but you manage it.

2) You fight a fire elemental, he's immune to everything but ice. Your wizard is a pyromaniac so he has no ice spells and your hired goons only have regular swords. You die, reload, learn an ice spell, and then kill the elemental easily.

 

The first situation forces the player to think on his feet and switch up his strategy to win. The second situation 'punishes' the player for not being very specifically prepared. It seems that Obsidian designed their combat system to prevent situation 2; an (arguably) fairly common challenge in the IE games. But, in doing so, they also eliminated situation 1, ensuring that any tactic will work against any enemy no matter how unintuitive it is.

 

Why would they do this? I'm genuinely interested in finding out what benefits (and there must be some) a system without damage-immunities would bring. I'm not ragging on Obsidian or complaining that their combat is broken. They're sane people so they must have had a reason to design it this way.

[MadDemiurg]

Mobs still have different levels of resistances to different damage types and attacks (deflection/will/fort/ref). Personally I never felt the need to optimise the damage types much even solo, but attacking weaker saves is a pretty common move. If the combat was harder damage type optimisation might also become necessary.

 

Personally I don't like (permanent) immunities, since they render specific builds completely ineffective. What's the point in building a fire wizard if his spells don't work in significant number of encounters at all? I wouldn't mind temporary immunity buffs which you can dispel or wait out though.

Edited April 29, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[knownastherat]

This was one of the fist differences I noticed when playing the game for first time. Except agreeing with the premise outlined in OP I am not sure I like the current system more but do not have any arguments beyond personal preference to offer.

[Crucis]

So it's my understanding that Obsidian wanted to avoid 'puzzle encounters' where, once you knew the solution (e.g. Protection from Undead = dead lich) the fight it trivialized. They didn't want people to get wrecked the first time around, reload, then crush the opposition with a giant meta-knowledge hammer.

 

This is a somewhat controversial goal which, nonetheless, could be part of a respectable game design philosophy. But that's not what I want to talk about here.

 

Consider the following scenarios:

1) You fight a fire elemental, he's immune to fire. Your usual strategy of hurling flaming balls at stuff doesn't work! What do you do? Well, you kill it with swords. Ok, you hadn't sharpened your swords so it's tricky, but you manage it.

2) You fight a fire elemental, he's immune to everything but ice. Your wizard is a pyromaniac so he has no ice spells and your hired goons only have regular swords. You die, reload, learn an ice spell, and then kill the elemental easily.

 

The first situation forces the player to think on his feet and switch up his strategy to win. The second situation 'punishes' the player for not being very specifically prepared. It seems that Obsidian designed their combat system to prevent situation 2; an (arguably) fairly common challenge in the IE games. But, in doing so, they also eliminated situation 1, ensuring that any tactic will work against any enemy no matter how unintuitive it is.

 

Why would they do this? I'm genuinely interested in finding out what benefits (and there must be some) a system without damage-immunities would bring. I'm not ragging on Obsidian or complaining that their combat is broken. They're sane people so they must have had a reason to design it this way.

 

For starters, I  wouldn't say that "situation 2" was an IE thing, so much as it's a DnD thing.  At least, a DnD thing for the DnD version active at the time. 

 

Secondly, remember that  big reason that many battles in those DnD IE games could feel like sit2 is that in DnD, IIRC, there were many monsters that REQUIRED you to have a weapon of an certain enchantment level for you to even touch them.  PoE doesn't have the requirement.  Any weapon can damage any enemy as long as you do enough damage to overcome whatever DR it might have, specific to that weapon's damage type. 

 

Of course, some monsters are have high DRs against certain types of damage, and may be extremely difficult to damage if you try to hurt them thru their best DR.  Damaging a Fire Elemental with Fire would be a good example.  What you do in PoE is simply learn your enemies' strengths and weaknesses and try to attack their weakest DRs, or at least not their strongest ones.  This isn't a case of knowing the magic bullet solution, knowing how to beat an invulnerability.  Just knowing your enemies' strengths and weaknesses. 

 

I will say that it is entirely possible to get spanked in a battle and then come back and spank the enemy due to some insight you gained from the first time.  But this usually isn't because you learned of some "protection from XXXXX" spell, so much as the solution to beating XXXX finally came to you.  For me, this happened against Ogres when I learned to turn their strength against each other with Confusion spells.  In truth, you can do this for many enemies, but Ogres seem particularly vulnerable to this. 

 

Also, I disagree that by eliminating situation #2 you also eliminate situation #1.  Situation #1 is still entirely in play, since as I describe above, it's not about finding a magic bullet so much as finding and exploiting weakness, or at least not attacking an enemy's strengths.  Attacking an enemy's strengths often doesn't end well, whereas attacking their weaknesses often does. 

 

The trick is learning an enemy's weaknesses.  Frankly, often those weaknesses should be obvious.  It should be obvious that Fire elementals' (otherwise known as Fire Blights) strength is Fire, and that the opposite, cold, is probably their weakness.  Or that skeletons are probably more vulnerable to crushing attacks than slashing or piercing attacks.  And Ogres are probably vulnerable to mental attacks (because their big, strong, and (usually) dumb).  Another example is one that's not so much intuitive as it is experiential.  If you see some kith in plate, and assuming that your characters are familiar with plate armor, you should know that plate is strongest against slashing and piercing damage and weakest against crushing damage.  So, if you have the choice, switching to blunt weapons, i.e. maces, clubs, flails, morningstars, etc. is a good idea against plate wearing enemies.  Also, this is one of the things that the game's graphics zoom lets you do.  You can zoom in (while paused, of course) and take a good look at your kith enemies and see what armor their wearing and plan accordingly.

 

 

Anyways, that's all for now....  Learning to attack an enemy's weakness and not his strengths is not the same thing as learning the magic bullet for an enemy that was so prevalent in the DnD based IE games.

[Crucis]

Mobs still have different levels of resistances to different damage types and attacks (deflection/will/fort/ref). Personally I never felt the need to optimise the damage types much even solo, but attacking weaker saves is a pretty common move. If the combat was harder damage type optimisation might also become necessary.

 

Personally I don't like (permanent) immunities, since they render specific builds completely ineffective. What's the point in building a fire wizard if his spells don't work in significant number of encounters at all? I wouldn't mind temporary immunity buffs which you can dispel or wait out though.

 

Without arguing in favor of immunities, I will say that I think that this is a good example of why more generalized builds, particularly for spellcasters, are better than specialists.   From a melee perspective, it'd be like building up a warrior who specialized in swords (i.e. slashing weapons) and then coming up against some bad guys wearing plate armor, which is highly resistant to slashing weapons.  If you don't carry a single blunt weapon on this character, your swordmaster is going to be in for a really difficult fight trying to use the very weapons your enemy's defenses are strongest against.

 

Whether it's a swordmaster or an fire wizard, eventually you will run up against an enemy whose defenses are strongest against your specialty.  And if your character refuses to be at least a little more generalized, those fights will be rather difficult for him/her.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Crucis

[MadDemiurg]

 

Mobs still have different levels of resistances to different damage types and attacks (deflection/will/fort/ref). Personally I never felt the need to optimise the damage types much even solo, but attacking weaker saves is a pretty common move. If the combat was harder damage type optimisation might also become necessary.

 

Personally I don't like (permanent) immunities, since they render specific builds completely ineffective. What's the point in building a fire wizard if his spells don't work in significant number of encounters at all? I wouldn't mind temporary immunity buffs which you can dispel or wait out though.

 

Without arguing in favor of immunities, I will say that I think that this is a good example of why more generalized builds, particularly for spellcasters, are better than specialists.   From a melee perspective, it'd be like building up a warrior who specialized in swords (i.e. slashing weapons) and then coming up against some bad guys wearing plate armor, which is highly resistant to slashing weapons.  If you don't carry a single blunt weapon on this character, your swordmaster is going to be in for a really difficult fight trying to use the very weapons your enemy's defenses defenses are strongest against.

 

Whether it's a swordmaster or an fire wizard, eventually you will run up against an enemy whose defenses are strongest against your specialty.  And if your character refuses to be at least a little more generalized, those fights will be rather difficult for him/her.

 

Pretty much. But in case of no complete immunities you're not completely screwed in this case. If immunities were a thing, said situation against fire/slash immune opponent would be much more punishing.

[Crucis]

 

 

Mobs still have different levels of resistances to different damage types and attacks (deflection/will/fort/ref). Personally I never felt the need to optimise the damage types much even solo, but attacking weaker saves is a pretty common move. If the combat was harder damage type optimisation might also become necessary.

 

Personally I don't like (permanent) immunities, since they render specific builds completely ineffective. What's the point in building a fire wizard if his spells don't work in significant number of encounters at all? I wouldn't mind temporary immunity buffs which you can dispel or wait out though.

 

Without arguing in favor of immunities, I will say that I think that this is a good example of why more generalized builds, particularly for spellcasters, are better than specialists.   From a melee perspective, it'd be like building up a warrior who specialized in swords (i.e. slashing weapons) and then coming up against some bad guys wearing plate armor, which is highly resistant to slashing weapons.  If you don't carry a single blunt weapon on this character, your swordmaster is going to be in for a really difficult fight trying to use the very weapons your enemy's defenses defenses are strongest against.

 

Whether it's a swordmaster or an fire wizard, eventually you will run up against an enemy whose defenses are strongest against your specialty.  And if your character refuses to be at least a little more generalized, those fights will be rather difficult for him/her.

 

Pretty much. But in case of no complete immunities you're not completely screwed in this case. If immunities were a thing, said situation against fire/slash immune opponent would be much more punishing.

 

 

Very true.  Heck, even in PoE there are some enemies whose DRs are particularly high against a certain type of damage, such as Fire Blights against fire damage.  And it's not surprising if those DRs are so high that they can feel nearly invulnerable, even if they're not 100% invulnerable.  I mean, if a swordmaster runs up against a monster with a DR of 35 against slashing weapons, he's not likely to do any significant damage to that monster unless he gets a crit, and possibly only with a 2H'd edged weapon.

 

In the case of melee combatants, this is why I always try to carry weapons covering at least 2 different damage types, such as a sword and a mace, for a simple example.  It's always nice to have options.  For that matter, if you're going to dual wield, it may not be a bad idea to use weapons of 2 different damage types, i.e. mace in one hand, sword in the other.

 

 

[Barleypaper]

If a specific DR of a mob is intended to be a significant hurdle, then why not simply make it an immunity? It would make it clearer to players that they should be adjusting their tactics in certain situations.

[MadDemiurg]

Because it's still possible to deal with it using inefficient methods if you don't have any other, thus not negating your build completely if you happen to focus on these. You can also debuff DT etc. What good would a full immunity do?

[Crucis]

If a specific DR of a mob is intended to be a significant hurdle, then why not simply make it an immunity? It would make it clearer to players that they should be adjusting their tactics in certain situations.

 

Because saying that vampires can only be hit with +2 (or better) weapons is really corny, IMO.  I like the PoE model better.  Far less corny and for the most part, seems more logical.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Crucis

[Barleypaper]

Because it's still possible to deal with it using inefficient methods if you don't have any other, thus not negating your build completely if you happen to focus on these. You can also debuff DT etc. What good would a full immunity do?

I can think of very few situations where you only have one possible damage type at your disposal in a party based RPG. And if you've gotten yourself into such a situation, well then maybe you deserve to die. If you're in such a situation but have min-maxed your burly crushing damage hammer guy and you want to be able to inefficiently hammer incorporeal entities, I suppose it's OK to have a system that caters to that. But I don't see that as being in huge demand.

 

If you're looking for reasons to include immunities on enemies:

1) So that you can look in the combat log and see (X is immune to slashing) and immediately understand what you're doing wrong. Alternatively you're left guessing; maybe you're doing a little bit of damage and aren't sure if it's the DR or just bad rolls.

2) Lore. Fire elementals can be killed by fire? I suppose it depends on what they're really made of but generally a total immunity would be logical. Same goes for blinding skeletons, knocking down dragons, mind controlling fungus (you'd have to be a pretty skilled cipher).

Edited April 29, 2015 by Barleypaper

[knownastherat]

Because it's still possible to deal with it using inefficient methods if you don't have any other, thus not negating your build completely if you happen to focus on these. You can also debuff DT etc. What good would a full immunity do?

 

Full immunity would force player to adjust, to be flexible.

 

Hypothetical Fire Wizard a) does not exist, not here nor in IE games, as there are always other spells b) well, if one choses to be specialized it implies limitations by definition. Its not like specialization has only advantages.

 

All this exists in context. There is nothing wrong with meeting golems for first time only to find out that your weapons cant hurt them and you need to figure out a puzzle. Fail of Ages was fun puzzle. There is also nothing wrong with picking 2H at level 1 and killing boss with 2H level 12 without ever being forced to switch because nobody is immune, game is not too difficult and buffs/debuffs will do the job regardless.

 

I guess it could be argued that system with no immunities adds to replay ability as its not possible, as mentioned in OP, to figure out the puzzle to trivialize encounters. Question is, if encounters, and essentially whole game play,  are not trivialized even without immunities because there is nothing forced upon player, nothing to solve.

Edited April 29, 2015 by knownastherat

[petrivanzyl]

Total immunity might not be the way to go, but currently it seems that even those creatures with a specific high defense is still killed too easily with an attack that is supposed to be very weak against that defense. Sometimes its so "easy" that the player don't even realise it.

[MadDemiurg]

 

Because it's still possible to deal with it using inefficient methods if you don't have any other, thus not negating your build completely if you happen to focus on these. You can also debuff DT etc. What good would a full immunity do?

I can think of very few situations where you only have one possible damage type at your disposal in a party based RPG. And if you've gotten yourself into such a situation, well then maybe you deserve to die. If you're in such a situation but have min-maxed your burly crushing damage hammer guy and you want to be able to inefficiently hammer incorporeal entities, I suppose it's OK to have a system that caters to that. But I don't see that as being in huge demand.

 

If you're looking for reasons to include immunities on enemies:

1) So that you can look in the combat log and see (X is immune to slashing) and immediately understand what you're doing wrong. Alternatively you're left guessing; maybe you're doing a little bit of damage and aren't sure if it's the DR or just bad rolls.

2) Lore. Fire elementals can be killed by fire? I suppose it depends on what they're really made of but generally a total immunity would be logical. Same goes for blinding skeletons, knocking down dragons, mind controlling fungus (you'd have to be a pretty skilled cipher).

 

1) You can see DR values in the log

2) Don't care about it much tbh

 

 

 

Because it's still possible to deal with it using inefficient methods if you don't have any other, thus not negating your build completely if you happen to focus on these. You can also debuff DT etc. What good would a full immunity do?

 

Full immunity would force player to adjust, to be flexible.

 

Hypothetical Fire Wizard a) does not exist, not here nor in IE games, as there are always other spells b) well, if one choses to be specialized it implies limitations by definition. Its not like specialization has only advantages.

 

All this exists in context. There is nothing wrong with meeting golems for first time only to find out that your weapons cant hurt them and you need to figure out a puzzle. Fail of Ages was fun puzzle. There is also nothing wrong with picking 2H at level 1 and killing boss with 2H level 12 without ever being forced to switch because nobody is immune, game is not too difficult and buffs/debuffs will do the job regardless.

 

I guess it could be argued that system with no immunities adds to replay ability as its not possible, as mentioned in OP, to figure out the puzzle to trivialize encounters. Question is, if encounters, and essentially whole game play,  are not trivialized even without immunities because there is nothing forced upon player, nothing to solve.

 

Depends on the game. Immunities annoyed me to no end in Dragon Age inquisition (which is a crap game, but this is another story :D) and there you only have a handful of spells, so not being able to use like half of them is a pretty big deal. Also lame boss design where the only thing that works is straight up tanking and dps because no CC or even debuffs actually work. I would hate to see smth like this here. Even in PoE, let's say wizard has fire and ice as his most damaging elements. Picking scion of flame & Secrets of Rime and then running into a mob with full immunity to these would be pretty lame. "Figuring out the encounter" can be done in different ways and does not require immunities. It's already present to certain extent in PoE where enemies have different forms of CC, different resists etc. I would rather see this impoved in a direction that encourages dynamic use of counter abilities like priest prayers, arcane reflection etc rather than simply tossing an undispellable immunity on every foe.

 

Total immunity might not be the way to go, but currently it seems that even those creatures with a specific high defense is still killed too easily with an attack that is supposed to be very weak against that defense. Sometimes its so "easy" that the player don't even realise it.

Personally i felt will/ref/fort/deflection differences on mobs enough to warrant switching tactics, especially solo. 6 man party can use anything because 6 man party is just too OP atm. I think DT values can be tuned a bit, so damage types play a bit larger role though.

Edited April 29, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[Slapstick87]

Personally I don't like (permanent) immunities, since they render specific builds completely ineffective. What's the point in building a fire wizard if his spells don't work in significant number of encounters at all? I wouldn't mind temporary immunity buffs which you can dispel or wait out though.

 

I'm on the opposite side of the fence. I like (permanent) immunities exactly because they render specific builds completely ineffective (allright, I'll give you that sneak attack in NWN and the plethora of undead was a nuisance. But it was a GOOD nuisance). The way it is now, you can just find "the build" that will "stomp everything" and make a one-trick-pony that works against everything. No need to change approach, figure out if maybe some other spells are good, etc. It all just becomes a game of cookie-cutter builds, single item/weapon usage throughout the whole game, one-trick-ponies, etc. No variation, and a lot of min-maxing.

 

On the other hand, if the game had mind immune mobs every now and then, I might actually have to switch from my CC grimoire to my damage grimoire on my wizard. If I encountered physically immune enemies, then I can't just lean back and rely on my rogue being the physical incarnation of the Reaper anymore. Where is my rustmonster, the most unholy dreaded fear of all fighters, which turns anything metal into dust? I could go on, but I hope my point is clear. Unique and weird enemies makes you think, try new spells, weapons and tactics. Now all monsters and all combat is quite like every other enemy and fight in the entire game.

[MadDemiurg]

 

Personally I don't like (permanent) immunities, since they render specific builds completely ineffective. What's the point in building a fire wizard if his spells don't work in significant number of encounters at all? I wouldn't mind temporary immunity buffs which you can dispel or wait out though.

 

I'm on the opposite side of the fence. I like (permanent) immunities exactly because they render specific builds completely ineffective (allright, I'll give you that sneak attack in NWN and the plethora of undead was a nuisance. But it was a GOOD nuisance). The way it is now, you can just find "the build" that will "stomp everything" and make a one-trick-pony that works against everything. No need to change approach, figure out if maybe some other spells are good, etc. It all just becomes a game of cookie-cutter builds, single item/weapon usage throughout the whole game, one-trick-ponies, etc. No variation, and a lot of min-maxing.

 

On the other hand, if the game had mind immune mobs every now and then, I might actually have to switch from my CC grimoire to my damage grimoire on my wizard. If I encountered physically immune enemies, then I can't just lean back and rely on my rogue being the physical incarnation of the Reaper anymore. Where is my rustmonster, the most unholy dreaded fear of all fighters, which turns anything metal into dust? I could go on, but I hope my point is clear. Unique and weird enemies makes you think, try new spells, weapons and tactics. Now all monsters and all combat is quite like every other enemy and fight in the entire game.

 

For me it encourages a homogenized builds that rely on the most "stable" effects, like the least resisted damage types and probably straight up DPS instead of CC because who knows what the next mob will be immune to.

Unique encounters can be easily designed without resorting to permanent immunities. I agree that encounter design is too bland in PoE atm, but that's an issue with the encounters, not immunities or the lack of them. For instance enemies with monk talent to reflect ranged misses back would make ranged rogue oneshot himself (but are bypassable since you can lower their defenses so you don't miss) and likewise some enemies may have monk's talent to halve CC duration making your CC less effective (but not utterly useless). Enemies casting arcane reflection would make you rethink offensive spell use etc...

Edited April 29, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[Barleypaper]

Of course, immunity is not the only way to make encounters more interesting. And, yes, a similar effect can be achieved using DR or deflection (with appropriate tweaking). However, I'm still not convinced there's anything wrong with having immunity as one way to spice up battles.

 

The combat at the moment is all about soft-counters. The player asks "Can I use this?" and the game says "Yeah, pretty much". Players aren't forced to change tactics, just encouraged. Wouldn't it be more interesting if they were, literally, forced?

 

Maybe they don't need to be, maybe encounters can be designed well enough that such strategic options naturally appear. But why bother doing that when you can just slap an immunity on a mob and be done with it? (not necessarily a bad thing, D&D does it)

[MadDemiurg]

Theoretically immunities can work well, but in practice most systems and environments tend to favor specific damage types and effects and having permanent immunities only exaggerates the issue (like the aforementioned NWN sneak attack issues).

[Barleypaper]

Theoretically immunities can work well, but in practice most systems and environments tend to favor specific damage types and effects and having permanent immunities only exaggerates the issue (like the aforementioned NWN sneak attack issues).

If a considerable portion of your game contains enemies that ignore a classes primary damage source, then that's a problem with the level design. PoE has plenty of enemy variety even within dungeons. I don't see a few immune mobs being much more of a problem than, say, teleporting shades or confusing mushrooms.

 

Sure, if you've built a character a specific way which makes him all but worthless for the next 3 fights, that's a shame. But it's not the end of the world.

[BlackAdder]

 

1) You can see DR values in the log

2) Don't care about it much tbh

 

 

The first time I fought shadows in the temple of Eothas I assumed they would be unfazed by knockdown, since they are supposed to be incorporeal entities. Little did I know.

Maybe you don't care about such trivial details, but to me that game-ist approach to everything was a quick path to ruin any shred of immersion.

Everything works on everything might fly in a MOBA or a MMO where you want all your players to be constantly on action.

In a game that proclaims rich world-building, immersive storytelling and giving a whole party at player's disposal, that's just lazy and unimaginative design.

 

Also the second scenario described in the OP doesn't apply in the IE games. I can think of exactly one situation where an enemy had immunity to all but one source of damage and there you could just weather it out until it cycled to the appropriate weakness (the chromatic demon in Watcher's Keep).

Most other strong enemies had an immunity or so that was well justified by their nature, but nothing that would stop dead any class or build.

[perilisk]

 

 

1) You can see DR values in the log

2) Don't care about it much tbh

 

 

The first time I fought shadows in the temple of Eothas I assumed they would be unfazed by knockdown, since they are supposed to be incorporeal entities.

 

 

If that were the case, why would they be affected swords? Or fire?

 

As for fire blights, fighting fire with fire is a phrase for a reason. Though their DR values should probably be higher.

 

That said, the occasional hard counter is not the end of the world.

 

I would appreciate having more discrete effects, though (e.g., you're either charmed or you aren't, and it has a noticeable impact). A game loses a little bit of the magic once you start thinking of everything in terms of adjusting numbers up and down.

[BlackAdder]

If that were the case, why would they be affected swords? Or fire?

 

As for fire blights, fighting fire with fire is a phrase for a reason. Though their DR values should probably be higher.

 

That said, the occasional hard counter is not the end of the world.

 

I would appreciate having more discrete effects, though (e.g., you're either charmed or you aren't, and it has a noticeable impact). A game loses a little bit of the magic once you start thinking of everything in terms of adjusting numbers up and down.

 

 

Heh, I was actually thinking the same thing when I wrote that about shadows. Glad I wasn't alone. But we are still playing a game in the end and there's simply has to be a way to fight your adversaries or there's no point in playing. If the reason why you can hurt those shadows is consistent with the game world, it's enough, even if it requires a slight suspended disbelief (ex. they are semi-corporeal and through brute force you can destroy them but not restrain them by tangible effect).

 

As for the fire vs fire thing, I do think that it refers to the means one uses to address a situation and not to the nature of the one addressing it, ie in a threat of violence use violence instead of diplomacy etc. It would be strange indeed to try to put out a fire by lighting up a bigger one.

 

Finally I'd like to point out that I'm not too hot for an all out rock-paper-scissors kinda system. I actually prefer a mix of hard and soft counters. Taking D&D as an example there are the specific hard counters (protection from petrification) and there the broader "soft" ones (bless, protection from evil). As long the counters are not too narrow (for one ability or spell only) or too broad to become god mode, it's much better than what we have in PoE.

 

As it is now I sometimes feel more like an accountant doing spreadsheets than a powerful mage weaving mystical powers.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

Boosting your Deflection and Accuracy and lowering the enemies is pretty basic and easy. And works in most encounters if you are focusing on buffs/debuffs.

 

Ive been focusing on disables.

[Blovski]

In general the big problem with immunity based systems is that every boss either has to be immune to every munchkin gimmick you can think of or become relatively trivial. In Throne of Bhaal,  almost all of the five were immune to backstab but there was nothing you couldn't instakill through traps, if you so desired. In the BG games Undead often seemed to basically operate with an entirely separate set of rules to normal enemies.

[Barleypaper]

If that were the case, why would they be affected swords? Or fire?

 

As for fire blights, fighting fire with fire is a phrase for a reason. Though their DR values should probably be higher.

 

That said, the occasional hard counter is not the end of the world.

 

I would appreciate having more discrete effects, though (e.g., you're either charmed or you aren't, and it has a noticeable impact). A game loses a little bit of the magic once you start thinking of everything in terms of adjusting numbers up and down.

 

There's also the fact that they're (I think) floating in mid-air. When you 'knock them down' they sort of just hang a few feet off the ground like they're drunk. I don't think many people would have assumed, first time, that it would be possible to knock down a spirit.

 

I agree with the last point, and it applies to mobs too. Someone mentioned it was silly that vampires couldn't be harmed without +2 weapons. But isn't that the point of having mystical and arcane enemies? Why should you, a bunch of murderhobos, be able to walk into any ancient and eldritch tomb and pummel everything to death with mundane pointy objects? Because you're the player and your build always has to be relevant?