Isn't balance skewed too much towards Deflection ?

[KDubya]

No matter how you build your tank they will always do very low damage compared to casters and monsters should always attack the latest first. In other games developers gave tanks the ability to "taunt" in order to justify why monsters are attacking them. Engage is just that - an excuse for having monsters not attacking casters in the first place - it has nothing to with disengage damage "scaring" the monsters.

 

 

If you make your fighter with max might and dex, use two handed weapons, take weapon spec, focus and mastery, and armored grace you'll out put consistent accurate heavy hitting around 40 damage per hit at a fairly fast rate.

 

With defender and wary defender modal you can tank up when needed, turning it off when not. Throw in the critical defense that converts crits to hits to increase survivability and the self rez and you get a sturdy frontliner that will kill mobs while being durable.

 

Only fighters can take weapon spec and mastery for +25% damage with the entire weapon group, and armored grace for -16% armor penalty, roughly equivalent to 5 extra dex as far as action speed goes. A fighter with soldier weapon group can alpha strike with a arbalest or arquebus as hard as a ranger or cipher can and then switch to melee while requiriring minmal support.

 

Melee rogues can output bigger damage but are fragile, needing to flank or utilize reach weapons from safety. Barbs are similar in their fragility as their deflection is terrible and they depend on killing quicker than they themselves get dropped. Fighters can take the hits, survive and still output good damage.

[Guest]

KDubya - WF: Knight will give you a bonus with crossbows. Not quite as powerful as the weapons you mentioned, but does have the benefit of doing both Piercing and Slash damage. My PC fighter has sword/medium shield in one weapon slot and a crossbow in the other and is good to go for 90% of encounters.

[koski]

AI smart enough to disengage once in a while would encourage more balanced fighters, who are reasonably tough while still dealing good damage. And that would be good.

 

My point was, that unless the AI would disengage completely randomly there would be no real benefit to it. Programming the AI to react to reasoning (like it does now) is easier. For example what the AI seems to do is: Attack the guy with the lowest defence in range while avoiding movement if engaged. If you remove the "avoid movement when engaged part" from the equation, its your squishies and non tanks that get targeted. Always. This is because your tank tends to be the guy with the highest defence in every category and there is little to no reason to target your tank.

 

I do get what you mean. I would also like it if fights weren't just about

 

a) "hug the corner to cover squishies"-shades

b) stick your tank(s) on everything and they wont move for the rest of the fight

 

But having things disengage only causes every fight to be like option a. No one would like that, there is actually a reason why they made the engagement system and that would just undermine the whole thing. To be honest the system itself is a lot better than what most games have. And I prefer it over the usual "aggro" mechanics that are in most MMORPG games.

 

What needs to happen is that the enemies are actually smarter. Move into better positions. Don't just queue to the door but instead stay away from it shooting ranged weapons at the tank. You know far enough so they won't be able to retaliate without breaking the door blockage. Maybe even just fire a single shot from ranged weapons (towards someone else than the tank maybe?) before moving into melee range. Little things that the players also do to maximize their effectiveness in fights.

[b0rsuk]

I think a bigger problem with AI disengaging randomly would be that it would be possible to keep reloading the game until you get the result you want. For example, 1 weak "tank" character, reload until they don't disengage.

[Kaylon]

 

No matter how you build your tank they will always do very low damage compared to casters and monsters should always attack the latest first. In other games developers gave tanks the ability to "taunt" in order to justify why monsters are attacking them. Engage is just that - an excuse for having monsters not attacking casters in the first place - it has nothing to with disengage damage "scaring" the monsters.

 

 

If you make your fighter with max might and dex, use two handed weapons, take weapon spec, focus and mastery, and armored grace you'll out put consistent accurate heavy hitting around 40 damage per hit at a fairly fast rate.

 

 

 

 

40 damage is low compared to what spells can do and to multiple targets. My point is that a smart monster would never attack a tank  and the devs are forced to come always with artificial solutions in order to help them fulfill their role (protect the caster). IMO a more realistic way would be to use a bodyguard system - where the tank is able to protect people in a certain area around him (ie all the single attacks against people he's protecting should be directed to him)

Edited May 5, 2015 by Kaylon

[koski]

I think a bigger problem with AI disengaging randomly would be that it would be possible to keep reloading the game until you get the result you want. For example, 1 weak "tank" character, reload until they don't disengage.

 

But its pretty much the only way to do it without causing option a) all the time.

[Voltron]

No matter how you build your tank they will always do very low damage compared to casters and monsters should always attack the latest first. In other games developers gave tanks the ability to "taunt" in order to justify why monsters are attacking them. Engage is just that - an excuse for having monsters not attacking casters in the first place - it has nothing to with disengage damage "scaring" the monsters.

 

Disagree, my monk super tank build could get higher Deflection with gear but I want to get hit in solo to get Wounds for TR. However I can assure you- you can put him in front and he will dish out more DPS than your DPS fighter with Torments Reach. Never underestimate Torments Reach. And he will still tank as good as tank paladin. Not as good as Fighter but he will at least dish super AOE (cone) DPS every second unarmed!

[Kaylon]

 

No matter how you build your tank they will always do very low damage compared to casters and monsters should always attack the latest first. In other games developers gave tanks the ability to "taunt" in order to justify why monsters are attacking them. Engage is just that - an excuse for having monsters not attacking casters in the first place - it has nothing to with disengage damage "scaring" the monsters.

 

Disagree, my monk super tank build could get higher Deflection with gear but I want to get hit in solo to get Wounds for TR. However I can assure you- you can put him in front and he will dish out more DPS than your DPS fighter with Torments Reach. Never underestimate Torments Reach. And he will still tank as good as tank paladin. Not as good as Fighter but he will at least dish super AOE (cone) DPS every second unarmed!

 

 

Don't understand what your monk has to do with the discussion and where I'm talking about my fighter? And a monk tanking like a paladin? It's a joke, yes? 

[Adragan]

I've always disliked the tank paradigm, the towering guy who suffers as much damage as it inflicts: zero. It has become so dominant that many players and game developers have their vision of RPG combat constrained by the notions of tanks and aggro, which, IMHO, hurts gaming quality. Not to mention that the paradigm makes absolutely no sense whatsoever from a realistic point of view. As others have pointed out, who in their right mind would bother hitting a flat, inoffensive wall, when their whole party is being mopped up ?

 

No, decidedly, I much prefer combat where fighters are actual threats that an opponent absolutely wants to hold back, either with fighters or barrage attacks, because they are unstoppable juggernauts. A raging man with huge plate armor, a massive shield and a sword is not someone you want anywhere near you, you want him held back or dead before he reaches you, but he's really hard to kill so your team has to focus on his butt. His weakness is definitely not fire power nor is it protection, it's speed and range.

 

 

As for the concept of aggro separated from actual threat (e.g, tank aggro, taunts), do we need this notion when we have a realistic combat system ? We don't because threat immediacy is enough to gauge how much party resources should be allocated to a task. Tanks present no threat so an opponent should stop allocating resources to oppose them as soon as they become aware of the subterfuge.

 

The only advantage to this notion of aggro is that it saves development time by making AI simpler and game difficulty easier to control. But without it we unlock the possibility to have wizard battles, priests being taken down so fighters can be stopped, strategic movement, and generally a lot of fun and variety as opposed to fun but repetitive battles.

Pillars of Eternity doesn't have much of this variety because of its weak AI, not because the combat system is flawed. As it is, engagement is used a lot like aggro but there is no explicit aggro mechanism that skills rely upon. Only AI work stands in our way rather than the combat system and skills overhaul that other games would need on top

 

Calculated disengagement doesn't necessarily mean that enemies can pierce our melee lines disregarding everything though. It's an AI issue and AI programmers know how to deal with this without having recourse to aggro-like behavior

Edited May 5, 2015 by Adragan

[Voltron]

 

 

No matter how you build your tank they will always do very low damage compared to casters and monsters should always attack the latest first. In other games developers gave tanks the ability to "taunt" in order to justify why monsters are attacking them. Engage is just that - an excuse for having monsters not attacking casters in the first place - it has nothing to with disengage damage "scaring" the monsters.

 

Disagree, my monk super tank build could get higher Deflection with gear but I want to get hit in solo to get Wounds for TR. However I can assure you- you can put him in front and he will dish out more DPS than your DPS fighter with Torments Reach. Never underestimate Torments Reach. And he will still tank as good as tank paladin. Not as good as Fighter but he will at least dish super AOE (cone) DPS every second unarmed!

 

 

Don't understand what your monk has to do with the discussion and where I'm talking about my fighter? And a monk tanking like a paladin? It's a joke, yes? 

 

 

No. That was to you saying "how you build your tank they will always do very low damage compared to casters". All I wanted to say that you can build monk for a tank and he will do great DPS. Thats all. And yes, my monk can tank as good as your paladin, becasue he will actually kill stuff 4x faster while doing so and being very capable against any CC in game. Tested in solo 2x runs, so in party that would be tank in the park.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Voltron

[b0rsuk]

There are reasons to believe current MMO tank metagame is not something done on purpose, but rather caused by flawed AI. I believe developers said something like that about AI - that they wanted to work on it more. The wiki mentions a Fighter talent which makes his disengagement attacks stronger. I guess it was later removed when they realized there's no time to make AI good enough.

Edited May 5, 2015 by b0rsuk

[Kaylon]

 

 

 

No matter how you build your tank they will always do very low damage compared to casters and monsters should always attack the latest first. In other games developers gave tanks the ability to "taunt" in order to justify why monsters are attacking them. Engage is just that - an excuse for having monsters not attacking casters in the first place - it has nothing to with disengage damage "scaring" the monsters.

 

Disagree, my monk super tank build could get higher Deflection with gear but I want to get hit in solo to get Wounds for TR. However I can assure you- you can put him in front and he will dish out more DPS than your DPS fighter with Torments Reach. Never underestimate Torments Reach. And he will still tank as good as tank paladin. Not as good as Fighter but he will at least dish super AOE (cone) DPS every second unarmed!

 

 

Don't understand what your monk has to do with the discussion and where I'm talking about my fighter? And a monk tanking like a paladin? It's a joke, yes? 

 

 

No. That was to you saying "how you build your tank they will always do very low damage compared to casters". All I wanted to say that you can build monk for a tank and he will do great DPS. Thats all. And yes, my monk can tank as good as your paladin, becasue he will actually kill stuff 4x faster while doing so and being very capable against any CC in game. Tested in solo 2x runs, so in party that would be tank in the park.

 

 

No, your monk will never do "great" DPS compared to a caster - that was my point. There's a difference between surviving and tanking - the paladin would probably finish most battles close to full life while your monk would need to rest after nearly every fight. When your monk will be able to tank the adra dragon then you can compare him to a paladin.

[Razorchain]

I've always disliked the tank paradigm, the towering guy who suffers as much damage as it inflicts: zero. It has become so dominant that many players and game developers have their vision of RPG combat constrained by the notions of tanks and aggro, which, IMHO, hurts gaming quality. Not to mention that the paradigm makes absolutely no sense whatsoever from a realistic point of view. As others have pointed out, who in their right mind would bother hitting a flat, inoffensive wall, when their whole party is being mopped up ?

 

No, decidedly, I much prefer combat where fighters are actual threats that an opponent absolutely wants to hold back, either with fighters or barrage attacks, because they are unstoppable juggernauts. A raging man with huge plate armor, a massive shield and a sword is not someone you want anywhere near you, you want him held back or dead before he reaches you, but he's really hard to kill so your team has to focus on his butt. His weakness is definitely not fire power nor is it protection, it's speed and range.

 

 

As for the concept of aggro separated from actual threat (e.g, tank aggro, taunts), do we need this notion when we have a realistic combat system ? We don't because threat immediacy is enough to gauge how much party resources should be allocated to a task. Tanks present no threat so an opponent should stop allocating resources to oppose them as soon as they become aware of the subterfuge.

 

The only advantage to this notion of aggro is that it saves development time by making AI simpler and game difficulty easier to control. But without it we unlock the possibility to have wizard battles, priests being taken down so fighters can be stopped, strategic movement, and generally a lot of fun and variety as opposed to fun but repetitive battles.

Pillars of Eternity doesn't have much of this variety because of its weak AI, not because the combat system is flawed. As it is, engagement is used a lot like aggro but there is no explicit aggro mechanism that skills rely upon. Only AI work stands in our way rather than the combat system and skills overhaul that other games would need on top

 

Calculated disengagement doesn't necessarily mean that enemies can pierce our melee lines disregarding everything though. It's an AI issue and AI programmers know how to deal with this without having recourse to aggro-like behavior

After playing a custom party to lvl 7 in Potd where I had a Paladin and Chanter "Walls" or shield fighter who where dishing out absolute minimal damage I got bored and started again.

 

This time I'm using Two handed Estoc/pollaxe fighter and druid offensive spellcaster with a shield as my frontliners assisted by a dual saber wielding barbarian. All are specced offensively with only few points in resolve and perception. I am checking how viable it is going with offensive builds instead of hiding behind deflection tanks in Potd

Edited May 6, 2015 by Razorchain

[eubatham]

There are reasons to believe current MMO tank metagame is not something done on purpose, but rather caused by flawed AI. I believe developers said something like that about AI - that they wanted to work on it more. The wiki mentions a Fighter talent which makes his disengagement attacks stronger. I guess it was later removed when they realized there's no time to make AI good enough.

 

Nah, the tank "metagame" in most MMO's is a conscious design choice, not simply due to lack of advanced AI. The only "MMO" that I'm aware off where bad AI is part of the issues it's facing, is GW2. However, GW2 has so many mechanical problems when it comes to PvE that blaming it on just poor AI is mistaking the tip of the iceberg that's above water as the entire iceberg.

Edited May 6, 2015 by eubatham

[Kaylon]

 

There are reasons to believe current MMO tank metagame is not something done on purpose, but rather caused by flawed AI. I believe developers said something like that about AI - that they wanted to work on it more. The wiki mentions a Fighter talent which makes his disengagement attacks stronger. I guess it was later removed when they realized there's no time to make AI good enough.

 

Nah, the tank "metagame" in most MMO's is a conscious design choice, not simply due to lack of advanced AI. The only "MMO" that I'm aware off where bad AI is part of the issues it's facing, is GW2. However, GW2 has so many mechanical problems when it comes to PvE that blaming it on just poor AI is mistaking the tip of the iceberg that's above water as the entire iceberg.

 

 

Yes, I consider the actual design choices in modern rpg/mmo very poor and limiting. In my vision, any class should be able to achieve the same level of defense/offense if he chooses so, but by different means. Warriors should have high defense through their heavy armor/shield, rogues through dodge/evade and casters through magic. The damage level should also be the same - fighters through training/specialization, rogues through stealth/poisons/traps and casters with spells. From here you can have variations and combinations for any hybrid you want.

[koski]

 

 

There are reasons to believe current MMO tank metagame is not something done on purpose, but rather caused by flawed AI. I believe developers said something like that about AI - that they wanted to work on it more. The wiki mentions a Fighter talent which makes his disengagement attacks stronger. I guess it was later removed when they realized there's no time to make AI good enough.

 

Nah, the tank "metagame" in most MMO's is a conscious design choice, not simply due to lack of advanced AI. The only "MMO" that I'm aware off where bad AI is part of the issues it's facing, is GW2. However, GW2 has so many mechanical problems when it comes to PvE that blaming it on just poor AI is mistaking the tip of the iceberg that's above water as the entire iceberg.

 

 

Yes, I consider the actual design choices in modern rpg/mmo very poor and limiting. In my vision, any class should be able to achieve the same level of defense/offense if he chooses so, but by different means. Warriors should have high defense through their heavy armor/shield, rogues through dodge/evade and casters through magic. The damage level should also be the same - fighters through training/specialization, rogues through stealth/poisons/traps and casters with spells. From here you can have variations and combinations for any hybrid you want.

 

 

The whole notion of fighter being as effective at dishing out damage as the guy who can call up lightning from the sky is ridiculous. Personally I think such balance has no place in an actual RPG. Some people are just better than others, whether they were born with it or trained for it. Its what makes things interesting. I want to play a wizard because of the raw power it holds in its fingers and I am willing to pay the price for it, which is generally the lack of physical endurance. Now if I could have a wizard who is as physically strong as a fighter (without the use of spells to achieve that) and still as good regular wizard, then I could talk about balancing, but only because it would make fighters entirely redundant (to a point where they should then be removed as a class).

 

The problem is not really in the design choices of modern rpg/mmo games. Its the powerplay instead of roleplay mentality. People should roleplay their characters instead of whining that they can't play their characters because some other class/race/build is mechanically superior to the one they picked. If you can't handle fighters doing less damage than wizards, then don't recruit any fighters in your party, just play with a group full of wizards. If wizard suck and ciphers are the best, then by all means make a party full of ciphers (or just don't make/take any wizards).

 

I finished my first game as a chanter, with spread around stats (I think I had like 12 dex) and zero summon invocations. Why? Because I didn't feel the summon invocations fit my character concept. I used one-handed weapons and no shield and used it as an off-tank and damage dealer. I had a rogue recruited NPC who used a crossbow instead of arbalest or war bow. I wore a sword on Edér because I felt he was not a hatchet (or flail) guy and I switched out the door shield because it looked silly. Sure my difficulty was only hard, but if you feel the difficulty is getting in the way of your roleplaying you can just reduce it.

 

People are so overly concerned about effectiveness that they forget what roleplaying games are all about.

Edited May 6, 2015 by koski

[Kaylon]

 

 

 

There are reasons to believe current MMO tank metagame is not something done on purpose, but rather caused by flawed AI. I believe developers said something like that about AI - that they wanted to work on it more. The wiki mentions a Fighter talent which makes his disengagement attacks stronger. I guess it was later removed when they realized there's no time to make AI good enough.

 

Nah, the tank "metagame" in most MMO's is a conscious design choice, not simply due to lack of advanced AI. The only "MMO" that I'm aware off where bad AI is part of the issues it's facing, is GW2. However, GW2 has so many mechanical problems when it comes to PvE that blaming it on just poor AI is mistaking the tip of the iceberg that's above water as the entire iceberg.

 

 

Yes, I consider the actual design choices in modern rpg/mmo very poor and limiting. In my vision, any class should be able to achieve the same level of defense/offense if he chooses so, but by different means. Warriors should have high defense through their heavy armor/shield, rogues through dodge/evade and casters through magic. The damage level should also be the same - fighters through training/specialization, rogues through stealth/poisons/traps and casters with spells. From here you can have variations and combinations for any hybrid you want.

 

 

The whole notion of fighter being as effective at dishing out damage as the guy who can call up lightning from the sky is ridiculous. Personally I think such balance has no place in an actual RPG. Some people are just better than others, whether they were born with it or trained for it. Its what makes things interesting. I want to play a wizard because of the raw power it holds in its fingers and I am willing to pay the price for it, which is generally the lack of physical endurance. Now if I could have a wizard who is as physically strong as a fighter (without the use of spells to achieve that) and still as good regular wizard, then I could talk about balancing, but only because it would make fighters entirely redundant (to a point where they should then be removed as a class).

 

The problem is not really in the design choices of modern rpg/mmo games. Its the powerplay instead of roleplay mentality. People should roleplay their characters instead of whining that they can't play their characters because some other class/race/build is mechanically superior to the one they picked. If you can't handle fighters doing less damage than wizards, then don't recruit any fighters in your party, just play with a group full of wizards. If wizard suck and ciphers are the best, then by all means make a party full of ciphers (or just don't make/take any wizards).

 

I finished my first game as a chanter, with spread around stats (I think I had like 12 dex) and zero summon invocations. Why? Because I didn't feel the summon invocations fit my character concept. I used one-handed weapons and no shield and used it as an off-tank and damage dealer. I had a rogue recruited NPC who used a crossbow instead of arbalest or war bow. I wore a sword on Edér because I felt he was not a hatchet (or flail) guy and I switched out the door shield because it looked silly. Sure my difficulty was only hard, but if you feel the difficulty is getting in the way of your roleplaying you can just reduce it.

 

People are so overly concerned about effectiveness that they forget what roleplaying games are all about.

 

 

Nobody prevents you to roleplay your characters the way you want, the problem is you want to prevent the others to play the way they want. And no, a fighter mowing through hordes of monsters (the fantasy literature is full of such examples) isn't more ridicoulous than a guy calling the lightning - that's what fantasy is .

[Zwiebelchen]

 

Also, better AI that knows when to disengage and go after a weaker target.

 

It would be really interesting to see this. As how it currently stands there is little to no reason to not disengage from the tanks. I bet the whole community would be shouting shenanigans if that started to happen. I mean everyone and their mother tends to build tanks for survivability, which always leads to less damage that ends up with their disengagement attacks not being any real threat. In fact, the current NPC AI actually hurts from targets doing disengagement (my tanks tend to start following the designated target and if that is the one who disengages the tank will happily take attacks from the rest of the guys he is engaged with). In the end tanks would hold no aggro as its always smarter to just take the hits and run to one-shot the wizards/priests in no armour/cloth. Every fight would be reduced into huddling in the corner covering all paths to your squishies (like many of us do against shadows/phantoms/shades) or just the usual door blocking.

 

The real way to fix these problems would be to give enemies ranged attacks. Currently, only designated ranged attackers use ranged weapons but the game would change completely if the enemy would be able to use the same tactics as you. Having your fighter block the door while the rest of the party attacks with reach weapons or ranged/spells? How would you like it if the enemy at the second row would switch to using a pike or the knight in the back row to his crossbow and return the favour against your squishies? Suddenly you'd be in a hurry to deal with the tank blocking the door to get inside to deal with the actual threat. Its hard to justify a person in a fantasy world that would not carry some sort of ranged weapon with them. When it is about life or death, you'll want to at least have a shot of ending the fight before it even starts. Many enemies even have bows, but they never switch to them.

 

 

I 110% abso-friggin'-lutely agree with the ranged weapons thing. Give enemies a ranged weapon set and done. Obviously, certain enemies shouldn't have one, like trolls. But ogres, kith, xaurips, etc. ... they are all perfectly suited for some ranged weapons.

 

About enemies disengaging: I think it would be terrible game design if enemies disengage your tank without an apparent reason. It would basicly render the disengagement mechanic useless and make combat a completely uncontrollable mess with zero amount of tactics. Instead, enemies should disengage under certain conditions, like a higher priority target being very close or when frightened/in panic, etc. ...

Not only would that make sense, but it would also make disengagement happen more frequently without being unpredictable and random.

 

However, I still think the disengagement mechanic should be changed towards an actual 5-foot movement rule like in D&D. It makes no sense that I eat a disengagement attack every time I'm moving my character just a pixel. As long as you don't leave a certain area around the mob, characters should definitely not trigger a disengagement attack.

Also, why the **** do long-range melee weapons like Pikes not trigger disengagement attacks? That makes absolutely zero sense.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[koski]

Nobody prevents you to roleplay your characters the way you want, the problem is you want to prevent the others to play the way they want. And no, a fighter mowing through hordes of monsters (the fantasy literature is full of such examples) isn't more ridicoulous than a guy calling the lightning - that's what fantasy is .

 

 

You sort of missed the point, where being hit by lightning is bound to hurt a lot more (ie. deal more damage) than being hit by a sword. One leaves you as a lump of charcoal and the other makes a cut / hole. Realistically, both might be as deadly (such as putting a sword through an eye, into the brains) but a sword can in no way compare to a lightning bolt in actual damage done. The game is already balanced in this account by giving wizards/druids limited amount of times they're able to reduce a target to a lump of charcoal. No further balance should be needed.

 

Literal 1:1 balance you're talking about would be more feasible for a competitive PvP based game, such as Guild Wars or WoW PvP. But it has no place in an actual single player roleplaying game.

 

And fantasy is about warriors being able to take multiple foes and surviving (which they do) and being able to take on bears and dragons (which they can). It is not about swords dealing as much damage as lightning bolts and fireballs.

Edited May 6, 2015 by koski

[MadDemiurg]

To be fair, I find the image of a warrior fighting a dragon with a sword completely ridiculous (and any visual adaptations that try to portray this, PoE included, look completely ridiculous as well unless the dragon is cow sized or smth). The only thing more ridiculous is fighting a dragon while dual wielding daggers (which is a pretty silly combat style in the first place). If going for relative realism and suspension of disbelief, the only way to hurt smth with the size of a dragon would be to carry a portable ballista (which would require several people and/or horses to move it) or use your fellow wizard's "summon rocket launcher" spell. Just my 2 cents.

Edited May 6, 2015 by MadDemiurg

[Kaylon]

 

Nobody prevents you to roleplay your characters the way you want, the problem is you want to prevent the others to play the way they want. And no, a fighter mowing through hordes of monsters (the fantasy literature is full of such examples) isn't more ridicoulous than a guy calling the lightning - that's what fantasy is .

 

 

You sort of missed the point, where being hit by lightning is bound to hurt a lot more (ie. deal more damage) than being hit by a sword. One leaves you as a lump of charcoal and the other makes a cut / hole. Realistically, both might be as deadly (such as putting a sword through an eye, into the brains) but a sword can in no way compare to a lightning bolt in actual damage done. The game is already balanced in this account by giving wizards/druids limited amount of times they're able to reduce a target to a lump of charcoal. No further balance should be needed.

 

Literal 1:1 balance you're talking about would be more feasible for a competitive PvP based game, such as Guild Wars or WoW PvP. But it has no place in an actual single player roleplaying game.

 

And fantasy is about warriors being able to take multiple foes and surviving (which they do) and being able to take on bears and dragons (which they can). It is not about swords dealing as much damage as lightning bolts and fireballs.

 

 

No, it's you who missed my point. You talk about realism in a fantasy game - ie lightning should do more damage than a sword. What I said was that a warrior doing that kind damage with his sword isn't more ridiculous than the idea of a guy calling the lightning.

 

It's not about balance, it's about not limiting choices and not forcing players into stereotypes. If a fighter is able to kill a dragon by himself (like it seems you agree) he won't certainly do it using a toothpick and trying to outlast the dragon...

 

 

To be fair, I find the image of a warrior fighting a dragon with a sword completely ridiculous (and any visual adaptations that try to portray this, PoE included, look completely ridiculous as well unless the dragon is cow sized or smth). The only thing more ridiculous is fighting a dragon while dual wielding daggers (which is a pretty silly combat style in the first place). If going for relative realism and suspension of disbelief, the only way to hurt smth with the size of a dragon would be to carry a portable ballista (which would require several people and/or horses to move it) or use your fellow wizard's "summon rocket launcher" spell. Just my 2 cents.

 

 

Talking about realism in a fantasy game is ridiculous. A poisoned dagger wielded by a nimble fighter who can reach the weak spots of a dragon could be just as deadly - you just need imagination (the literature abounds in fighter vs dragons fights...). But these days people seem more influenced by the mmo culture where the idea of hero doesn't exist anymore and people are always forced to play in large groups to be able to achieve something.

Anyway this is my last post on this topic. I just posted an opinion and I don't like when other people are trying to impose their own as the right one...

[MadDemiurg]

Talking about realism in a fantasy game is ridiculous. A poisoned dagger wielded by a nimble fighter who can reach the weak spots of a dragon could be just as deadly - you just need imagination (the literature abounds in fighter vs dragons fights...). But these days people seem more influenced by the mmo culture where the idea of hero doesn't exist anymore and people are always forced to play in large groups to be able to achieve something.

Anyway this is my last post on this topic. I just posted an opinion and I don't like when other people are trying to impose their own as the right one...

 

I'm not trying to impose my opinion on anyone, I'm merely stating it. It kinda works in literature if it's well written but I've yet to see a visual depiction of such fight which wouldn't look completely ridiculous, As for realism in fantsy - surely fantasy is not realistic. But there's a thing called suspension of disbelief. Without it, you might as well add some Tom&jerry style scenes where a character gets completely flattened only to walk away like it's noting a few minutes later.

[b0rsuk]

Hey, it's a fantasy game ! Let's kill dragons with thrown sausages, because talking about realism in a fantasy game is ridiculous ! Wearing panties on your head grants you ability to teleport short distances, use that if you endurance is low. You get +40 Deflection and Reflex against dragons while sowing potatoes, so if you can lure a dragon (using a frying pan) to a party member who's sowing potatoes, the fight will be much easier. As long as you remember to dip the sausages in deer urine, the dragon will be Dazed every 4th hit. Then use a slingshot to shoot his eyes out. You can craft a slingshot on Belafa, and the car tyres are found in a chest can be found on the 3rd level of Valewood.

Edited May 6, 2015 by b0rsuk

[Razorchain]

 

 

 

 

Nobody prevents you to roleplay your characters the way you want, the problem is you want to prevent the others to play the way they want. And no, a fighter mowing through hordes of monsters (the fantasy literature is full of such examples) isn't more ridicoulous than a guy calling the lightning - that's what fantasy is .

 

You sort of missed the point, where being hit by lightning is bound to hurt a lot more (ie. deal more damage) than being hit by a sword. One leaves you as a lump of charcoal and the other makes a cut / hole. Realistically, both might be as deadly (such as putting a sword through an eye, into the brains) but a sword can in no way compare to a lightning bolt in actual damage done. The game is already balanced in this account by giving wizards/druids limited amount of times they're able to reduce a target to a lump of charcoal. No further balance should be needed.

 

Literal 1:1 balance you're talking about would be more feasible for a competitive PvP based game, such as Guild Wars or WoW PvP. But it has no place in an actual single player roleplaying game.

 

And fantasy is about warriors being able to take multiple foes and surviving (which they do) and being able to take on bears and dragons (which they can). It is not about swords dealing as much damage as lightning bolts and fireballs.

No, it's you who missed my point. You talk about realism in a fantasy game - ie lightning should do more damage than a sword. What I said was that a warrior doing that kind damage with his sword isn't more ridiculous than the idea of a guy calling the lightning.

 

It's not about balance, it's about not limiting choices and not forcing players into stereotypes. If a fighter is able to kill a dragon by himself (like it seems you agree) he won't certainly do it using a toothpick and trying to outlast the dragon...

 

 

To be fair, I find the image of a warrior fighting a dragon with a sword completely ridiculous (and any visual adaptations that try to portray this, PoE included, look completely ridiculous as well unless the dragon is cow sized or smth). The only thing more ridiculous is fighting a dragon while dual wielding daggers (which is a pretty silly combat style in the first place). If going for relative realism and suspension of disbelief, the only way to hurt smth with the size of a dragon would be to carry a portable ballista (which would require several people and/or horses to move it) or use your fellow wizard's "summon rocket launcher" spell. Just my 2 cents.

 

Talking about realism in a fantasy game is ridiculous. A poisoned dagger wielded by a nimble fighter who can reach the weak spots of a dragon could be just as deadly - you just need imagination (the literature abounds in fighter vs dragons fights...). But these days people seem more influenced by the mmo culture where the idea of hero doesn't exist anymore and people are always forced to play in large groups to be able to achieve something.

Anyway this is my last post on this topic. I just posted an opinion and I don't like when other people are trying to impose their own as the right one...

Dagger doesnt carry enough poison to kill the dragon, you poison the hafling in the group. He is resistant to poison (in D&D) then you send him to scout out the dragon lair. Then the dragon eats him and gets poisoned and dies.

 

Then you have gotten revenge on the hafling for eating all your supplies.

[Raven Darkholme]

 

 

 

 

 

Nobody prevents you to roleplay your characters the way you want, the problem is you want to prevent the others to play the way they want. And no, a fighter mowing through hordes of monsters (the fantasy literature is full of such examples) isn't more ridicoulous than a guy calling the lightning - that's what fantasy is .

 

You sort of missed the point, where being hit by lightning is bound to hurt a lot more (ie. deal more damage) than being hit by a sword. One leaves you as a lump of charcoal and the other makes a cut / hole. Realistically, both might be as deadly (such as putting a sword through an eye, into the brains) but a sword can in no way compare to a lightning bolt in actual damage done. The game is already balanced in this account by giving wizards/druids limited amount of times they're able to reduce a target to a lump of charcoal. No further balance should be needed.

 

Literal 1:1 balance you're talking about would be more feasible for a competitive PvP based game, such as Guild Wars or WoW PvP. But it has no place in an actual single player roleplaying game.

 

And fantasy is about warriors being able to take multiple foes and surviving (which they do) and being able to take on bears and dragons (which they can). It is not about swords dealing as much damage as lightning bolts and fireballs.

No, it's you who missed my point. You talk about realism in a fantasy game - ie lightning should do more damage than a sword. What I said was that a warrior doing that kind damage with his sword isn't more ridiculous than the idea of a guy calling the lightning.

 

It's not about balance, it's about not limiting choices and not forcing players into stereotypes. If a fighter is able to kill a dragon by himself (like it seems you agree) he won't certainly do it using a toothpick and trying to outlast the dragon...

 

 

To be fair, I find the image of a warrior fighting a dragon with a sword completely ridiculous (and any visual adaptations that try to portray this, PoE included, look completely ridiculous as well unless the dragon is cow sized or smth). The only thing more ridiculous is fighting a dragon while dual wielding daggers (which is a pretty silly combat style in the first place). If going for relative realism and suspension of disbelief, the only way to hurt smth with the size of a dragon would be to carry a portable ballista (which would require several people and/or horses to move it) or use your fellow wizard's "summon rocket launcher" spell. Just my 2 cents.

 

Talking about realism in a fantasy game is ridiculous. A poisoned dagger wielded by a nimble fighter who can reach the weak spots of a dragon could be just as deadly - you just need imagination (the literature abounds in fighter vs dragons fights...). But these days people seem more influenced by the mmo culture where the idea of hero doesn't exist anymore and people are always forced to play in large groups to be able to achieve something.

Anyway this is my last post on this topic. I just posted an opinion and I don't like when other people are trying to impose their own as the right one...

Dagger doesnt carry enough poison to kill the dragon, you poison the hafling in the group. He is resistant to poison (in D&D) then you send him to scout out the dragon lair. Then the dragon eats him and gets poisoned and dies.

 

Then you have gotten revenge on the hafling for eating all your supplies.

Best post ever.