It's laughably easily draw enemy aggro on one tank member of your party and just click once to move them in a long straight line parallel to the rest of your party. Because movement speed tends to be the same for the majority of monsters and your characters, those enemies will tend to continue chasing the same character -- their closest target. And you can just set your five other members to wail away with ranged weapons.
That's kind of a specific example, though. In that case, we're talking about a single enemy facing a full party of 6. Kiting is more complicated--that is, it requires more clicking and pausing--when you're working with multiple enemies. Even in Pillars of Eternity, you can string enemies along like that pretty easily, if there's only one of them.
Generally I say "lure" instead of kite when I'm talking about using a character as bait for an enemy. I say "kite" when the character running from the enemy is also the one attacking it (I think that's the typical meaning in the community). That's how I distinguish between the two attack patterns.
Right on, I understand you now. However, I have to disagree that this at all a comparably effective tactic in Pillars. With the harder punishment for things like death versus knockdowns, the BG games really push you to do absolutely everything you can to avoid damage. And Pillars give you all sorts of quasi-free healing abilities, like second wind and figther's base passive ability, it just doesn't seem at all comparable that players have the same motivation to play that way.
Well, I kind of see the BG vs PoE combat thing as two sides of a coin. When it comes to BG early levels, yeah unless you do the thing that to be fair, the game is fairly clear that you should do which is stick to the road until you have allies, there's little nuance to the combat. But because the game is clear about what you should do early on, I don't think it's a big flaw.
POE basically nuked the point of scouting or the ability to set up ambushes with real firepower, because so many of the spells can't be cast out of combat, and that really is a lot of the fun in BG2. PoE has a better interface, it's more balanced, its very polished, but it's constrictive. BG once you got a decent party and some decent levels, gives you a lot of options, and yeah you could abuse kiting, but kiting isn't fun. And besides, the rest mechanics are the real broken aspect of it. I do have to give PoE this, best resting mechanics of all these games, and it was just a really simple idea of making it a resource.
Both are fun, but BG2 is more fun in the end because of better encounters generally.
And besides, the rest mechanics are the real broken aspect of it. I do have to give PoE this, best resting mechanics of all these games, and it was just a really simple idea of making it a resource.
I do really agree with this point. In BG, I tend to avoid resting as much as I can, because I know that it's an overpowered mechanic, which in turn makes me barely want to cast spells unless I really need them. Tying resting to a resource that you can only carry a limited amount of really gives more tactical significance to when you rest, and how many spells you use and when.
Plus if BG1 had the same resting supply mechanics, it would actually make it a more challenging and therefore funner experience to go on longer expeditions, like the Nashkel-Gnoll-Stronghold trek. BG1 is built for expeditions, so it would be a perfect fit.
the actions you describe: regrouping, changing positions or formations in combat are far more "uncomfortable" than kiting. Moving an entire party in real time when the pathfinding ai is not up to the task is an exercise in patience. I still remember the awful experience the Firewine dungeon was in original BG1,
...
2) You really need to install SCS and play against, like, at least minimally competent AI. It makes a world of difference.
Just going to respond to one point. If we start tossing mods into these discussions we are no longer discussing the merits of the games themselves. The same can be said of "be your own DM!" admonition as well.
Just going to respond to one point. If we start tossing mods into these discussions we are no longer discussing the merits of the games themselves. The same can be said of "be your own DM!" admonition as well.
Possibly it's helpful to distinguish between the game and the game engine. I don't know PoE, but if you compare say BG2 with Dragon Age: Origins, the former's engine has no threat mechanic and once-per-rest powers; the latter's engine has threat as a core mechanic and short-time recovery of all of your core powers. So even optimized AI is going to look very different in the two games. On top of that, the actual quality of the AI can vary, but that's a matter of design quality, not intrinsic to the engine - of course, other things being equal, better AI is better than worse AI!
(There is also the matter of the scripting system, I guess: BG2's scripting language is rudimentary, such that some things are impossible and other things are really tedious unless you automate it (which SCS does extensively, and I think the source code for SoD does to some extent. But I assume any modern game is going to have a properly functional scripting system.)
On Might & Magic VII, Dragon's Breath deals 1-25 points of damage / dark magic level, so at skill level = 10, could be 10 damage or 250 damage.
The probability to roll 10 or 250 would be 25^10=9.5*10^13. That is, once in 95 trillions. And since DB is area spell, make that 1 quadrillion against group of enemies. Suffice to say it could never happen, because the number wouldn't be reached even if all the gamers in the world had been casting DB non-stop every day since MM7 was released.
On Might & Magic VII, Dragon's Breath deals 1-25 points of damage / dark magic level, so at skill level = 10, could be 10 damage or 250 damage.
The probability to roll 10 or 250 would be 25^10=9.5*10^13. That is, once in 95 trillions. And since DB is area spell, make that 1 quadrillion against group of enemies. Suffice to say it could never happen, because the number wouldn't be reached even if all the gamers in the world had been casting DB non-stop every day since MM7 was released.
I think that you din't understood. I said that it can happens to illustrate how the damage can vary. Of course, most damage dealt will be between 50 to 200 in that case, but you got the idea. Randomness exist in RPG's since 80s dungeon crawlers.
And even on action RPG's like Diablo 1/2, spells has min/max damage, melee attacks can miss, etc.
The idea that an RPG should be an Chess game instead of an immersive world is what kills Larien games for me. They put balance above cool factor, immersion and etc in a SP RPG and it in some cases, kill the fantasy. An necromancer that can have only one minion, an archer that can only hit targets at 13m with cooldown based skills. I hate it. I fell much more like i an in a puzzle game than playing an character in another world.
And note that archery is extremely effective. What happened on Battle of Agincourt could never happens on DOS2. But something similar can happens in D&D as longs the Archers get a little lucky.
Note that i an not against "homebrew stuff", as longs homebrew classes are optional like Dragon's Disciple or for example new abilities. When i played D&D long time ago, an member of my group was Warlock was an mix of 3.5e with 5e and since he got an Fiendish "patron", the Patron teached how to imbue fire into his Eldricht Blast, making Eldricht Blast into an partially force and partially fire damage. This type of "homebrew rules" are fine IMO, as longs they are optional.
There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.
"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."
This interpretation should still be more true to the tabletop RPG than its predecessors, however, capturing the feel of D&D even if it's not borrowing every single system and rule. Some of this is because of a difference in technology.
They haven't mentioned getting rid of to-hit rolls altogether. Moreover, the "chopping " word is used by PC Gamer, not Swen. He says they are implementing the DnD rules as pure as they can, and adapt, not cut, certain aspects. This information is absolutely not enough to conclude about removals of dice mechanic.
I also think the majority of interviews try to say the game should apply, among other people, to DnD newbies, so I doubt they plan to make all the fights "chess" episodes, or crises.
and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently..
You don't need to re write rules if you think that missing too constant at low level is bad. You can :
A ) Start at mid level(3/4/5)
B ) Make armor rarer
C ) Say that something that worked on dozens of previous game doesn't work without saying even why doesn't work and when people ask if you will be true to pnp rules, ignore and show no answers and let people wonderin "what works for this guy?"
Pathfinder Kigmaker yes, adapted well the PnP rules and when i asked for then on steam forum before pre order if can be an sorcerer of silver dragon bloodline, assume dragon form, fly, stop time and raise an undead army, one of then that are Russian developers awnsered me on steam saying that fly is too hard to implement on a cRPG but the rest will be in the game, except spells that they din't decided yet what spells will be on final game. And a lot of people on the thread said that will pre order the game too due excitement. Why he is hiding how combat will gonna work? When a lot of people showed concern? Wings allow you to ignore hard terrains but doesn't give the same freedom as pnp(by engine limitations, but summoning/dragon form are pnp like and of course, not all spells are in the game. Sadly, time stop is not on P:K, but since over 95% of time in the game are mid level gameplay, i don't see how the lack of time stop is that an big fault. Same with fly. But even P:K could be better if the fly limitation isn't present on the engine and you can fly and teleport like pnp.
(...) however, capturing the feel of D&D even if it's not borrowing every single system and rule. Some of this is because of a difference in technology. .
This is the same argument of Sword Coast Legend developers.
And "different technologies", the greatest difference is that PC's are far more limited than an P&P, so Wish can only work with an limited table instead of giving full pnp liberties and some epic spells like raise island if are in a video game, needs to be much less flexible. But hitting/missing, saves and etc, why they are hard to be implemented? Why they "obviously doesn't work"?
But core hitting/missing rules isn't
The fact is, if he really thinks that "missing not work on video games", then he is very ignorant. Clearly who thinks that missing doesn't work on cRPG's never saw it working on previous D&D titles like BG/IWD/NWN to action focused games such as D1/D2 to dungeon crawlers like Wizardry and Might & Magic
If an Soccer game changes the ball, they need to re write completely the Soccer rules. Same if an basic aspect of combat is changed.
If you make an D&D game, you will have almost no concurrency. If you adapt D&D to fit "modern gaming design/tropes" with cooldowns, never miss but huge inflated health, no saves, no cool spells, necromancy being worthless, ranged combat worthless and etc then there are a lot of concurrency. If is the BG3 case, why should i purchase BG3 over any other modern rpg? I see no reason. Now, if BG3 stay true to his roots, then i have an huge reason.
That's great for you, but I'm playing on a PC, with a party of four, and here is what I observe: I order the party to move (in the standard 2x2 formation) in a straight line forward. Xzar, for some reasons unknown, decides to take a detour and runs in the perpendicular direction to where the rest of the party is moving. He bumps into a nearby rock, then decides to make an even longer detour to run around the rock, and then - stopping short of rejoining the party - turns back and retraces all of his steps, only to follow the straight route the rest of the party took. And that in an open field map.
Well - Xzar is rather clearly insane. That one may just be on you ; )
I like the char progression of BG/IWD. On my solo sorcerer(dragon disciple) run, it goes from running from goblins when they succeed to their saves against charm at lv 1 to summoning an Efreet's army, stopping the time and doing all types of epic stuff.
Or on M&M VIII, where i start as a necromancer that can't trow two toxic clouds without running out of power to an powerful Lich capable of reanimating dragons, teleporting and nuking cities out of existence.
This is an experience that i can't have on Larien's games and i wish that they don't try make BG3 into a DOS2 meets SCL clone, but he refuses to say what is he altering and why. This old school RPG's doesn't care about superficial things like balance(why balance in a SP game? And how an game where enemies can cast the same spells that you cast can be unbalanced?) and care about cool factor, immersive world, immersive class fantasy, etc.
Sorry, but i IRL can easily hit targets smaller than humans at 50m with my 175 lbf crossbow or with an pistol and don't consider myself an good shooter. When i tried an 30-06 rifle on an long range firing range, i scored hits at 300m. See an game where archer can't hit an elephant sized target at 14m makes me fell like i an using an nerf toy, not an actual longbow.
Just spotted this review for BG:EE on Steam, which contains arguments that might explain the developers' decision about misses for BGIII:
"i wanted to like this game but there are some very big problems with the main one being that at the start of the game pretty much all melee attacks miss and you have to use bows. this was insane to me because that means that for the first part of the game melee is just useless and people actually defend this mechanic even though it really hurts the game and makes many play styles completely impossible."
Just spotted this review for BG:EE on Steam, which contains arguments that might explain the developers' decision about misses for BGIII:
"i wanted to like this game but there are some very big problems with the main one being that at the start of the game pretty much all melee attacks miss and you have to use bows. this was insane to me because that means that for the first part of the game melee is just useless and people actually defend this mechanic even though it really hurts the game and makes many play styles completely impossible."
He can play on lower difficulty if he is having an hard time. Or BG:EE could give the option to start at lv 3/4. On NWN1/2 you don't start at lv 1, only the "tutorial" is lv 1.
But again, on BG lv 1 = close to a peasant, lb 20 = epic almost godlike character.
Do you expect that an commoner with barely any weapon training can hit someone with plate armor and deal any damage? Only if he is insanely lucky. Even if he have only 1 in 20 chances, is actually more than he would have IRL. And note that he is one guy. BG:EE have 88% of positive reviews and is one of the most seeling games everywere. On steam, on gog, even on cellphone ultra casual market.
Comments
Right on, I understand you now. However, I have to disagree that this at all a comparably effective tactic in Pillars. With the harder punishment for things like death versus knockdowns, the BG games really push you to do absolutely everything you can to avoid damage. And Pillars give you all sorts of quasi-free healing abilities, like second wind and figther's base passive ability, it just doesn't seem at all comparable that players have the same motivation to play that way.
POE basically nuked the point of scouting or the ability to set up ambushes with real firepower, because so many of the spells can't be cast out of combat, and that really is a lot of the fun in BG2. PoE has a better interface, it's more balanced, its very polished, but it's constrictive. BG once you got a decent party and some decent levels, gives you a lot of options, and yeah you could abuse kiting, but kiting isn't fun. And besides, the rest mechanics are the real broken aspect of it. I do have to give PoE this, best resting mechanics of all these games, and it was just a really simple idea of making it a resource.
Both are fun, but BG2 is more fun in the end because of better encounters generally.
I do really agree with this point. In BG, I tend to avoid resting as much as I can, because I know that it's an overpowered mechanic, which in turn makes me barely want to cast spells unless I really need them. Tying resting to a resource that you can only carry a limited amount of really gives more tactical significance to when you rest, and how many spells you use and when.
Plus if BG1 had the same resting supply mechanics, it would actually make it a more challenging and therefore funner experience to go on longer expeditions, like the Nashkel-Gnoll-Stronghold trek. BG1 is built for expeditions, so it would be a perfect fit.
Modder brain starts revving...
Just going to respond to one point. If we start tossing mods into these discussions we are no longer discussing the merits of the games themselves. The same can be said of "be your own DM!" admonition as well.
They have nothing to do with the merits of combat design in PoE vs BG.
Possibly it's helpful to distinguish between the game and the game engine. I don't know PoE, but if you compare say BG2 with Dragon Age: Origins, the former's engine has no threat mechanic and once-per-rest powers; the latter's engine has threat as a core mechanic and short-time recovery of all of your core powers. So even optimized AI is going to look very different in the two games. On top of that, the actual quality of the AI can vary, but that's a matter of design quality, not intrinsic to the engine - of course, other things being equal, better AI is better than worse AI!
(There is also the matter of the scripting system, I guess: BG2's scripting language is rudimentary, such that some things are impossible and other things are really tedious unless you automate it (which SCS does extensively, and I think the source code for SoD does to some extent. But I assume any modern game is going to have a properly functional scripting system.)
I think that you din't understood. I said that it can happens to illustrate how the damage can vary. Of course, most damage dealt will be between 50 to 200 in that case, but you got the idea. Randomness exist in RPG's since 80s dungeon crawlers.
And even on action RPG's like Diablo 1/2, spells has min/max damage, melee attacks can miss, etc.
The idea that an RPG should be an Chess game instead of an immersive world is what kills Larien games for me. They put balance above cool factor, immersion and etc in a SP RPG and it in some cases, kill the fantasy. An necromancer that can have only one minion, an archer that can only hit targets at 13m with cooldown based skills. I hate it. I fell much more like i an in a puzzle game than playing an character in another world.
And note that archery is extremely effective. What happened on Battle of Agincourt could never happens on DOS2. But something similar can happens in D&D as longs the Archers get a little lucky.
Note that i an not against "homebrew stuff", as longs homebrew classes are optional like Dragon's Disciple or for example new abilities. When i played D&D long time ago, an member of my group was Warlock was an mix of 3.5e with 5e and since he got an Fiendish "patron", the Patron teached how to imbue fire into his Eldricht Blast, making Eldricht Blast into an partially force and partially fire damage. This type of "homebrew rules" are fine IMO, as longs they are optional.
This is the direct quote from the article:
There are some things on the chopping block, however. It's an interpretation of D&D, specifically 5th Edition, because porting the core rules, which Larian tried to do, doesn't work. Or it works, Vincke clarifies, but it's no fun at all. One of the culprits is missing when you're trying to hit an enemy, and while the combat system has yet to be revealed, you can at least look forward to being able to smack people more consistently.
"You miss a lot in D&D—if the dice are bad, you miss," he says. "That doesn't work well in a videogame. If I do that, you're going to review it and say it's shit. Our approach has been implementing it as pure as we can, and then just seeing what works and what doesn't. Stuff that doesn't work, we start adapting until it does."
This interpretation should still be more true to the tabletop RPG than its predecessors, however, capturing the feel of D&D even if it's not borrowing every single system and rule. Some of this is because of a difference in technology.
They haven't mentioned getting rid of to-hit rolls altogether. Moreover, the "chopping " word is used by PC Gamer, not Swen. He says they are implementing the DnD rules as pure as they can, and adapt, not cut, certain aspects. This information is absolutely not enough to conclude about removals of dice mechanic.
I also think the majority of interviews try to say the game should apply, among other people, to DnD newbies, so I doubt they plan to make all the fights "chess" episodes, or crises.
You don't need to re write rules if you think that missing too constant at low level is bad. You can :
A ) Start at mid level(3/4/5)
B ) Make armor rarer
C ) Say that something that worked on dozens of previous game doesn't work without saying even why doesn't work and when people ask if you will be true to pnp rules, ignore and show no answers and let people wonderin "what works for this guy?"
Pathfinder Kigmaker yes, adapted well the PnP rules and when i asked for then on steam forum before pre order if can be an sorcerer of silver dragon bloodline, assume dragon form, fly, stop time and raise an undead army, one of then that are Russian developers awnsered me on steam saying that fly is too hard to implement on a cRPG but the rest will be in the game, except spells that they din't decided yet what spells will be on final game. And a lot of people on the thread said that will pre order the game too due excitement. Why he is hiding how combat will gonna work? When a lot of people showed concern? Wings allow you to ignore hard terrains but doesn't give the same freedom as pnp(by engine limitations, but summoning/dragon form are pnp like and of course, not all spells are in the game. Sadly, time stop is not on P:K, but since over 95% of time in the game are mid level gameplay, i don't see how the lack of time stop is that an big fault. Same with fly. But even P:K could be better if the fly limitation isn't present on the engine and you can fly and teleport like pnp.
This is the same argument of Sword Coast Legend developers.
And "different technologies", the greatest difference is that PC's are far more limited than an P&P, so Wish can only work with an limited table instead of giving full pnp liberties and some epic spells like raise island if are in a video game, needs to be much less flexible. But hitting/missing, saves and etc, why they are hard to be implemented? Why they "obviously doesn't work"?
But core hitting/missing rules isn't
The fact is, if he really thinks that "missing not work on video games", then he is very ignorant. Clearly who thinks that missing doesn't work on cRPG's never saw it working on previous D&D titles like BG/IWD/NWN to action focused games such as D1/D2 to dungeon crawlers like Wizardry and Might & Magic
If an Soccer game changes the ball, they need to re write completely the Soccer rules. Same if an basic aspect of combat is changed.
If you make an D&D game, you will have almost no concurrency. If you adapt D&D to fit "modern gaming design/tropes" with cooldowns, never miss but huge inflated health, no saves, no cool spells, necromancy being worthless, ranged combat worthless and etc then there are a lot of concurrency. If is the BG3 case, why should i purchase BG3 over any other modern rpg? I see no reason. Now, if BG3 stay true to his roots, then i have an huge reason.
Well - Xzar is rather clearly insane. That one may just be on you ; )
Or on M&M VIII, where i start as a necromancer that can't trow two toxic clouds without running out of power to an powerful Lich capable of reanimating dragons, teleporting and nuking cities out of existence.
This is an experience that i can't have on Larien's games and i wish that they don't try make BG3 into a DOS2 meets SCL clone, but he refuses to say what is he altering and why. This old school RPG's doesn't care about superficial things like balance(why balance in a SP game? And how an game where enemies can cast the same spells that you cast can be unbalanced?) and care about cool factor, immersive world, immersive class fantasy, etc.
Sorry, but i IRL can easily hit targets smaller than humans at 50m with my 175 lbf crossbow or with an pistol and don't consider myself an good shooter. When i tried an 30-06 rifle on an long range firing range, i scored hits at 300m. See an game where archer can't hit an elephant sized target at 14m makes me fell like i an using an nerf toy, not an actual longbow.
I think you just summarized 90% of the discussions everywhere on the Internet about every subject imaginable
"i wanted to like this game but there are some very big problems with the main one being that at the start of the game pretty much all melee attacks miss and you have to use bows. this was insane to me because that means that for the first part of the game melee is just useless and people actually defend this mechanic even though it really hurts the game and makes many play styles completely impossible."
He can play on lower difficulty if he is having an hard time. Or BG:EE could give the option to start at lv 3/4. On NWN1/2 you don't start at lv 1, only the "tutorial" is lv 1.
But again, on BG lv 1 = close to a peasant, lb 20 = epic almost godlike character.
Do you expect that an commoner with barely any weapon training can hit someone with plate armor and deal any damage? Only if he is insanely lucky. Even if he have only 1 in 20 chances, is actually more than he would have IRL. And note that he is one guy. BG:EE have 88% of positive reviews and is one of the most seeling games everywere. On steam, on gog, even on cellphone ultra casual market.