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

[Barleypaper]

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.

The alternative to this would be to have them only practically immune to every munchkin gimmick, so the player wastes time testing all of their CC on them before realizing that 2 seconds of charm isn't really worth the effort.

 

Boss encounters are hard to design no matter which way you slice it. But that doesn't mean it can't be done well in either system. In BG, for instance, Sarevok is (if i remember right) totally immune to magic, but his henchmen aren't.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

BG2 had hard counters because there were so many spell casters. And everyone was pre buffed. So when there was an encounter you had to have your spells ready to take down opposing casters defenses. Cause some of them buffs were for game hours. Say if you were out of counter spells. You could kill everyone else then just run around to the wizard defenses finally ended. if not you couldn't hit him. 

 

What was Sanctuary like 1 turn per level. Immune to everything but couldn't attack either. If you didn't have the proper spell counter you just had to wait. Durations were so long. Ironskin was what 12 hours game time? Plus the emotion spells I think were like 4 hours or something. So immunities were welcomed cause of high durations.

 

So I can see why there are no Hard Counters. They aren't needed because no one is prebuffed with 8 spell defenses and defense against magical weapons etc.

 

Icewind Dale 1 there just wasn't any enemy spell casters. So you didn't need any of those spells. You could focus on AoE. And if you were IWD HoF mode focus on buffs, disables and summons.

 

I did however like confused or fear immunities. And of course I absolutely loved Shorty Saving Throws!!!!!! Dwarfs, Haflings and Gnomes forever!

Edited April 30, 2015 by Jimmysdabestcop

[Starwars]

I think it'd be nice to have immunities in some cases. Like... moderation is key. I don't think there should be a rule for "no immunities!" but also not an overreliance on them when designing encounters.

 

I think the game (and especially if we move on up in levels in expansions and sequels) will need more ways to change up the basic way one can approach combat at least. Shadows in this game is the most talked about example, they tend to change up the way you play an encounter because it screws you a bit when they teleport around. I think PoE needs more of those instances where you go "holy crap, my usual way of playing isn't effective here!". I think immunities can be one part of such a "toolbox".

 

But yeah, I did not typically enjoy the stripping of buffs (and buffing up yourself) in BG2 very much. Perhaps *some* of that could be used though.

[Jimmysdabestcop]

 

But yeah, I did not typically enjoy the stripping of buffs (and buffing up yourself) in BG2 very much. Perhaps *some* of that could be used though.

 

I actually really enjoyed that part.

[MadDemiurg]

 

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.

 

No, I think shadows totally should not be affected by physical afflictions, physical damage and cold damage. They should only be affected by fire damage! That would be fair.

 

 

BG2 had hard counters because there were so many spell casters. And everyone was pre buffed. So when there was an encounter you had to have your spells ready to take down opposing casters defenses. Cause some of them buffs were for game hours. Say if you were out of counter spells. You could kill everyone else then just run around to the wizard defenses finally ended. if not you couldn't hit him. 

 

What was Sanctuary like 1 turn per level. Immune to everything but couldn't attack either. If you didn't have the proper spell counter you just had to wait. Durations were so long. Ironskin was what 12 hours game time? Plus the emotion spells I think were like 4 hours or something. So immunities were welcomed cause of high durations.

 

So I can see why there are no Hard Counters. They aren't needed because no one is prebuffed with 8 spell defenses and defense against magical weapons etc.

 

Icewind Dale 1 there just wasn't any enemy spell casters. So you didn't need any of those spells. You could focus on AoE. And if you were IWD HoF mode focus on buffs, disables and summons.

 

I did however like confused or fear immunities. And of course I absolutely loved Shorty Saving Throws!!!!!! Dwarfs, Haflings and Gnomes forever!

 

Thing is, caster defenses are not "permanent" immunities. They can be worked around (dispelled). I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with permanent immunities you can do nothing about.

 

 

 

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.

 

Yeah, but I still don't see any big profit in introducing these, and pretty much all immunity systems I've seen suffer from devaluating certain abilities because of how common certain immunities are to some extent. I'd rather have more shadows and mind controlling mushrooms.

Edited April 30, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[Barleypaper]

There's also the question of whether 'fairness' actually matters in a single-player RPG where most content is optional and threats can be signposted in the narrative.

[Zwiebelchen]

The PoE system is fine. Just add more variety to defenses and DR to mobs and give them selected immunities against certain CC effects.

 

 

Even those enemies that should have a clear weakness and a clear strength in PoE had not that much difference in their defenses and DR scores. Just vary those defenses stronger and the play with defenses and DRs will be interesting.

 

In fact, in those few encounters where defenses and DRs actually did vary a lot, the battles where pretty fun. Like Shadows getting absolutely wrecked by fire spells or fortitude attacks or ogres being mind controlled / confused extremely easy. Give us more of that.

[petrivanzyl]

But surely status effects shouldn't proc on grazes?

[Crucis]

What does this "proc" mean?

[Crucis]

 

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?

 

 

No, it was and remains just plain corny and stupid.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

[Luckmann]

"Immunity to +X Weapons" were the dumbest ****, and I'm saying this as someone that adamantly support the idea of hard counters, immunities and strong resistances. It's never even established what it really means, it's just A-Wizard-Did-It-Plus-Two.
 

 
Immunities should make sense, not be completely arbitrary. And "A vampire can't be harmed by anything but +2 weapons" is completely arbitrary. You can tell me "Oh, Vampires are immune to most metals and is nearly immune to iron or steel, but can be hurt by cold iron", I'm like, alright, I can live with that. Or if you tell me fire elementals can't be hurt with fire, well, yeah, duh. I'd even be fine with fire-based things sometimes being resistant to cold or frost, simply because their own heat counteracts it. That's fine.

But "+2"? No. **** that ****.

There's also the question of whether 'fairness' actually matters in a single-player RPG where most content is optional and threats can be signposted in the narrative.

I'd like to add party-based. A single-player party-based RPG where most content is optional and threats can be signposted in the narrative, and most problems solved in more ways than one.

 

People worry that they need an exact counter to something unexpected, but not only is it almost never unexpected, but part of the gameplay should be to prepare yourself for such things, and no-one has ever asked for something that can only be countered in one single very specific way. And it's party-based; you're supposed to have a group of people that work together and shine at different points.

Oh lawd, a magic-immune enemy? Look at the punchers doing what they do best! Oh, no, an enemy that is easiest dispatched with frost? Pew pew pew, meta-magic-frost-magic-missiles! Pew pew, everyone cheers for the wizard, woooo.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Luckmann

[Barleypaper]

"Immunity to +X Weapons" were the dumbest ****, and I'm saying this as someone that adamantly support the idea of hard counters, immunities and strong resistances. It's never even established what it really means, it's just A-Wizard-Did-It-Plus-Two.

 

 

Immunities should make sense, not be completely arbitrary. And "A vampire can't be harmed by anything but +2 weapons" is completely arbitrary. You can tell me "Oh, Vampires are immune to most metals and is nearly immune to iron or steel, but can be hurt by cold iron", I'm like, alright, I can live with that. Or if you tell me fire elementals can't be hurt with fire, well, yeah, duh. I'd even be fine with fire-based things sometimes being resistant to cold or frost, simply because their own heat counteracts it. That's fine.

 

But "+2"? No. **** that ****.

The "+2" is merely an abstraction to fit within a game's rules. In a tabletop game, the DM would explain that your weapon was enchanted by fairies or whatever. Enchantment levels are just another way to implement an immunity-oriented combat system. Not necessarily the most immersive way, I'll give you that.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Barleypaper

[MadDemiurg]

Immunities should make sense, not be completely arbitrary. And "A vampire can't be harmed by anything but +2 weapons" is completely arbitrary. You can tell me "Oh, Vampires are immune to most metals and is nearly immune to iron or steel, but can be hurt by cold iron", I'm like, alright, I can live with that. Or if you tell me fire elementals can't be hurt with fire, well, yeah, duh. I'd even be fine with fire-based things sometimes being resistant to cold or frost, simply because their own heat counteracts it. That's fine.

 

But "+2"? No. **** that ****.

What about an enemy immune to all physical damage?

[Blovski]

The PoE system is fine. Just add more variety to defenses and DR to mobs and give them selected immunities against certain CC effects.

 

 

Even those enemies that should have a clear weakness and a clear strength in PoE had not that much difference in their defenses and DR scores. Just vary those defenses stronger and the play with defenses and DRs will be interesting.

 

In fact, in those few encounters where defenses and DRs actually did vary a lot, the battles where pretty fun. Like Shadows getting absolutely wrecked by fire spells or fortitude attacks or ogres being mind controlled / confused extremely easy. Give us more of that.

Absolutely. Would especially be good to have some minibosses with particularly exaggerated features and a special ability or two to break up the mooks. As is, in the three leaden key quests in Chapter Two, there are no hugely special fights or challenging individuals to deal with.

[Captain Shrek]

The funny thing about this game is how soft counters end up becoming hard counters anyway. In the sense they become so highly accrued on a target that 'extreme and specific' means need to be used to overcome them. That quoted portion is what I consider hard counters. Examples are the Adra Dragon and Thaos. 

[MadDemiurg]

The funny thing about this game is how soft counters end up becoming hard counters anyway. In the sense they become so highly accrued on a target that 'extreme and specific' means need to be used to overcome them. That quoted portion is what I consider hard counters. Examples are the Adra Dragon and Thaos. 

This is just a scaling issue. By the endgame you're often fighting the same mobs you meet in mid or even earlygame.

[Luckmann]

 

Immunities should make sense, not be completely arbitrary. And "A vampire can't be harmed by anything but +2 weapons" is completely arbitrary. You can tell me "Oh, Vampires are immune to most metals and is nearly immune to iron or steel, but can be hurt by cold iron", I'm like, alright, I can live with that. Or if you tell me fire elementals can't be hurt with fire, well, yeah, duh. I'd even be fine with fire-based things sometimes being resistant to cold or frost, simply because their own heat counteracts it. That's fine.

 

But "+2"? No. **** that ****.

What about an enemy immune to all physical damage?

 

 

I'm fine with that. And vice versa.

[petrivanzyl]

The funny thing about this game is how soft counters end up becoming hard counters anyway. In the sense they become so highly accrued on a target that 'extreme and specific' means need to be used to overcome them. That quoted portion is what I consider hard counters. Examples are the Adra Dragon and Thaos. 

 

Jip, basically Petrify = hard counter for Adra Dragon

[Jimmysdabestcop]

I thought it was weird elemental and spirit stuff didn't come more into play with weapons, armor, offense and defense.

[iKrivetko]

I think DnD has to have "Hard immunities" because DnD has such things as auto-hits, auto-fails and save-or-dies.