>Infinity Engine
>NWN1/2
>Pillars
>Pathfinder
everyone single one is guilty of this crime
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
[Sets hardest difficulty in a d20 game] Non-magical tanking becomes impossible
>sets hardest difficulty
>simple solution doesn't sufice
I don't know what you were expecting and why is that supposed to be a bad thing
illusion-based tanking, or other gimmicks that remove the ability to be hit, will never not be terrible and if your game requires it on the hardest difficulty, you've made a mistake in your design difficulty
Maybe your parents are the one who made a mistake not aborting you
Silence, uppity cuck.
This.
What do you think the difficulty sliders are for? Did you think it was just for an achievement and some bragging rights and that's it? What the hell would be the point of that? The entire point, is that they make the game insanely hard. So hard that you need to use everything in your disposal. Consumables, random items, all kinds of different classes and abilities working together to drive your abilities to the absolute maximum, just to make it. Sometimes it even includes RNG, so that if you get particularly unlucky, even doing everything right, is still not going to be enough. It's for people who want the ultimate challenge.
I mean ffs we're talking about single player games here. If you don't want the difficulty, then just don't do it. No-one is going to care if you do it on easy or normal or hard or impossible. Stuff like "no magic" or even "magic only" falls under the personal challenge category. You can just pick whatever difficulty you like and roleplay your way through there. I mean I consistently do that myself too. Take XCOM:EW / XCOM2:WotC for example. I'm not thirsty or even good enough to do true ironman, and besides the bugs would piss me off to no end. So I do the hardest difficulty non-ironman, and enforce a simple rule: everyone is fair game, except my main character. House rules can make games great fun. Don't depend on the devs to create your particular brand and flavor of game mode.
anon you tank with AC not with hitdice lmao
>tank with AC
tell me you don't play on the hardest difficulty without telling me
I do in fact play on hardest difficulty and
Engine
Yes you can. You, you dont even have to Min/Max to do that.
Yes you can. Same as above. Expertise-Feat helps but isn't necessary.
Yes you can.
The only one where you cannot tank without Min/Maxing and Magic from the get-go is Pathfinder on hardest difficulty.
Other than that I legitimately do not understand how the frick you suck so much at those Group-based RPGs.
>tell me you don't play on the hardest difficulty without telling me
Tell me you are projecting without telling me you are projecting.
It seems obvious that you clearly dont understand how D&D-Rulesets work.
i kneel reload sama
Have you considered that Dice/chance-based gameplay isn't for you since you are too autistic for it?
Maybe stick to playing Chess.
reload is the fundamental mechanic for people who play "hard" difficulty. how else do you propose morons can get a sense of satisfaction, too?
Could literally not be further from the truth.
Every time I die in an RPG I rage, uninstall the game and delete all saves. Then usually reinstall and start over again from the start a day or two later when I cool off. This repeats until the game becomes so easy to me i never die. It's arguably mental illness and concerns people around me.
>unfair difficulty is...unfair
Wow, who could have expected that.
Yes, when you ignore the rules for everyone who is not the player then shit happens.
Why are modern gamers always so buttblasted that playing hard games is hard? Everyone seems to want an easy mode that's labeled as the highest difficulty for some reason.
Yes, you need to think about how you use magic to do well, that's intentional. You can't just throw on some plate armor and expect to facetank the entire game. If you want things to be that easy, just play on easy mode. That's why it's called easy mode.
It's about the status, not the reality of it. They want to say they're hardcore and beat hard mode, but they don't want that to be difficult to do.
"Random chance is rigged in this side's favor" has been a lazy and shitty way to do difficulty since its inception. Proper difficulty changes would involve stronger enemies still within the rules, harder formations, and proper utilization of enemy skills. For example...
>A bunch of kobolds delaying their turn while the guy specced for tripping puts someone on his ass, at which point the kobolds dogpile with highly accurate attacks. Rules legal.
>Archers ready an action to shoot any mages seen casting a spell, rules legal
>Medusa cleric pulls out a scroll and animates petrified party members, rules legal.
>Tanky af giant monster is standing on a trap that repeatedly casts Cure Serious Wounds and will stay on that trap as much as possible, rules legal.
>Bunch of ghouls in a room with a trap that repeatedly casts Mass Inflict Wounds they will set off at every opportunity, rules legal.
>Goblin somehow has a +5 to damage and 50HP despite wielding a dagger and having single-digit strength and level 1 with no feats, not rules legal.
Look up the Dark Horizons mod for Baldur's Gate for a major list of examples of how to not do it. You end up against bullshit powerful enemies including humans with illegal strength scores an insane homebrew weapons, the first of which include a sword that paralyzes on hit and a throwing knife I'd expect in lategame SOA or even TOB. Cheese strats and AI exploits are mandatory, even a volley of exploding arrows is often not enough for these encounters.
https://lilura1.blogspot.com/2018/12/Baldurs-Gate-Key-Quest-Mod-Itemization.html
This guy gets it, stat scaling in place of AI difficulty and creative tactic design is lazy, unfun, and actively destroys game mechanics that are supposed to bring more dimension to the RPG world for a reason.
To play Devil's Advocate, it works in Dark Souls because everyone is a glass cannon, and enemies having more HP and stamina means you need to apply different tactics as that extra hit they can take or deal makes a big difference.
To be the devil's advocate to your own advocating, dark souls is a trash game that should never be brought up in any discussion about game design unless you need examples of badly designed trash.
You only get to discuss its difficulty and design once you complete at least one Souls game, which I have.
That guy is moronic but bringing up Dark Souls on the topic of RPG difficulty is really stupid. Dark Souls is basically 3D Mike Tyson's Punch-Out with stats and weapons kind of like Bushido Blade.
People actually talking about RPG difficulty ITT are talking about decision-oriented tactical combat where you manage risk and resources on a battlefield, not an action game with stats. It's a totally different dynamic.
Imagine thinking one of the biggest series in the past 10-15 years is trash.
You have to play one of the games, plus DS2 so you know how much better any DS game is compared to DS2.
>Imagine thinking one of the biggest series in the past 10-15 years is trash.
CoD and FIFA confirmed for not trash.
You only get to discuss its difficulty and design once you won at least one FIFA championship.
There is an argument to be made that for an AI's strategy to work out in combat, they need higher survivability. I agree with you for the most part though.
Without irony DOS tactician mode actually did this, and it's glorious. New tactics, better AI, new abilities, more punishing positioning of NPCs, not attribute bloat.
No one followed suit.
>and it's glorious
No it fricking isn't. Played D:OS on my own for the first time on normal difficulty, got bored having to abuse same tactic over and over, and dropped around 75% through. Played once again with friend, this time on hardest difficulty, got filtered hard by the first fight until we cheesed with Grease+Fire, but past Cyseal the game was just as easy as on normal.
somehow has a +5 to damage and 50HP despite wielding a dagger and having single-digit strength and level 1 with no feats, not rules legal.
ah I see you too have tried to play the pathfinder random dungeon DLC on unfair
>stat scaling in place of AI difficulty and creative tactic design is lazy, unfun, and actively destroys game mechanics that are supposed to bring more dimension to the RPG world for a reason.
I agree with you in theory, but the argument is vastly exaggerated. It's not like d20 CRPGs have a shovelware problem of devs churning out game after lazy game. It's easy to demand unlimited sophistication in hand-crafted encounter design that remains fun and yet well-balanced with a difficulty slider. It's another to actually deliver that in a full game on schedule and on budget. Meanwhile, biasing stats does in fact increase the difficulty to a point.
>To play Devil's Advocate, it works in Dark Souls because everyone is a glass cannon
>To be the devil's advocate to your own advocating, dark souls is a trash game
You're both moronic, especially the second guy.
Dark Souls (in this context) is an an action game. Players aren't "glass cannons" (that would imply they are offensive powerhouses which only applies to a few builds). Most builds can't tank much damage because the goal is to play the action game well enough to avoid taking hits. It's an action game not a fricking RPG the focus isn't on decision-making, tactics, and resource management. Those aspects are all secondary to the physical challenges (reflxes & timing). And it's a good game. Calling it "trash" just outs you as someone who doesn't know shit about anything.
>the focus isn't on decision-making, tactics, and resource management
Ehhh.
None of the souls is the twitchy kind of action game, planning your fight around your moveset and the enemy's is as tactical a playstyle as moving around armies in an rts, if nowhere near as complex.
I mean, I'm sure there are people who can wing souls combat through reflexes, but most people will get rekt playing that way.
>is as tactical a playstyle as moving around armies in an rts
No, it's not. The association of 'git gud' with Dark Souls didn't come from nowhere. Seriously, if you haven't played Mike Tyson's Punch-Out for NES, do it. The game even has blocking that costs stamina (hearts).
Learning the enemy moveset is action gameplay. You observe and internalize the patterns and the timing, and train yourself to respond to that pattern with the right responses. It's all about reflexes and timing. Elements of resources and tactical maneuvering do come into play, but it's always secondary to the action.
Even if you go 100% poise-tank+estus approach, you still have to pay attention and time your heals and strikes appropriately or you'll probably get killed unless you're massively over-leveled.
>I mean, I'm sure there are people who can wing souls combat through reflexes
"Winging it" is not required for action gameplay. If you're training muscle memory, that's not "winging it" but it's still action gameplay.
>Learning the enemy moveset is action gameplay. You observe and internalize the patterns and the timing, and train yourself to respond to that pattern with the right responses. It's all about reflexes and timing.
I absolutely disagree with that, recognizing what is about to happen from tells and reacting in a pre-planned manner is about as tactical a behaviour as you can describe.
You're basically trying to define tactics as "shit that doesn't belong in action games" here, but tactics is pretty much just trying to control the flow of battle (in this context), a large part of souls gameplay is trying to force the enemy into behaving in certain ways.
Git gud is very often about managing the ai and very rarely about improving your muscle memory, but even if it was the very act of planning a specific counter to enemy attacs is by any reasonable definition "tactical".
>You're basically trying to define tactics as "shit that doesn't belong in action games"
No, I'm not.
You are failing to grasp the distinction between primary and secondary emphasis.
The Primary Emphasis of Dark Souls is the action. Tactical elements are most definitely present and important, but they are secondary .
>No, I'm not.
>With sufficient skills you can apply numerous tactics. Without skills, none of your tactics are going to work.
Assuming you're also
, you pretty blatantly are.
By your posts real war is action primary and tactics secondary, that's how moronic your argument is.
You are absolutely trying to define tactics as something completely removed from action, which is nonsensical in general and only useful for the sake of your present argument, to the point that you're even moving goalposts:
>The entire point of turn-based systems is to ELIMINATE that test of physical execution
We are talking about a real time game in a thread that started with rtwp games. The existence of games that focus on a specific facet of tactics doesn't make the rest only secondarily focused on tactics. You even have to try explaining your way out of rts because you thought of a counter to your argument before even posting it.
>hurr it only matters when you're good
Irony aside in posting this in a thread about max difficulty, it really doesn't matter. You could just as well argue that in an easier soulslike you can do away with the action element by focusing on the more stat based aspects.
Hell, you could make that argument with magic in ds1.
Hell, /vg/ homosexuals would make that argument about pretty much every single playstyle in every souls game. Nobody actually beat the game yet, don't you know?
>By your posts real war is action primary and tactics secondary
Yes you midwit.
>Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
>You are absolutely trying to define tactics as something completely removed from action
Well, it's true that I'm separating games that emphasize one over the other into distinct categories in order to make sensible comparisons, like maybe don't bother comparing baseball with stratego. While you can compare games cross-category if mechanics align sufficiently, this is not the case with Dark Souls vs RTwP (and other Real-Time RPG combat such as WoW-style MMOs)
Tanking and relative HP values are at the heart of the action mechanics in Dark Souls, which play out as a series of skill tests where you evade/block+punish or strike+evade/block. HP means "how many skill tests can I fail before losing" and enemy HP is "how many skill tests must I pass before winning?" Consider this in relation to how DkS was originally brought up:
. Inflating enemy HP in Dark Souls requires more player endurance as measured by ability to sustain passing skill checks before failing too many in a row.
This is not how it works in an RPG. In an RPG, HP is a resource employ as part of routine gameplay. Losing hitpoints in RPG combat is not a test of timing, it's a result of choices and RNG. You position a high-hp meatshield in front of low-hp mages. You avoid taking damage by disabling the enemy from range or biasing the whole environment in your favor using magic (eg web + free action), NOT by timing your blocks and dodges after observing enemy windups. HP factors heavily in decision-making. For example, maybe you open a battle with a fireball barely injuring some while heavily damaging others. Then you prioritize finishing off the weaklings with attacks and consider using more disabling spells on the stronger enemies. Everything is a sequence of decisions flowing from gambits, chance and outcomes. Inflating enemy HP in an RPG doesn't simply demand increased endurance in passing skill checks.
>recognizing what is about to happen from tells and reacting in a pre-planned manner is about as tactical a behaviour as you can describe.
But it required physical execution. Dark Souls is all about testing that physical execution. Action is primary, tactics are secondary. With sufficient skills you can apply numerous tactics. Without skills, none of your tactics are going to work.
The entire point of turn-based systems is to ELIMINATE that test of physical execution and replace it with some kind of abstract rules, so that the game becomes primarily about the decisions and not about the execution. Real-time games (eg RTS) may remain heavily decision-oriented, and only include 'action' mechanics to facilitate a real-time flow. Execution might matter a bit*, but typically you just need a bare minimum and the emphasis is heavily on what you decide to do and not execution of those decisions.
* Note that in the case of RTS, execution (eg APM) matters heavily at the extremes, but normal players did not dwell on that sort of thing when the genre became popular. It was all about directing your units on the field not micro-optimizing clicks per minute. There's nothing in those games akin to the Dark Souls mechanics of dodge-rolling or even holding up your shield at the right moment to block incoming attacks.
>Pillars
You have to use abilities but unless you think all active abilities -> magic this is just false. PoE fighters can tank just fine.
For IE/BG2 it's viable with the right gear and class (damage resistance stacking).
For everything 3e derived it's more true but it's called caster edition for a reason.
You can AC tank WotR Unfair tho, Cha-stacking can give you bullshit amounts of AC easily. Sure, you need plenty of spells layered on, but that's a core part of the game system.
>touch ac attack
sorry about that anon, maybe your next reload will go better
>104 AC
>70 touch AC
>wotr in screenshot
ngmi
>Aeon
Why would you not go trickster on this thing? It's practically made for improved crit if you just spec into kukri or something.
Since it's a tank build, he wants the passive immunities, I guess.
Seems dumb to sacrifice a truckload of extra damage for slightly better saves, especially when the build is already ridiculous.
Not just saves, outright immune to conditions.
Granted, other mythics have ways to deal with this (Trickster with athletics check, but this is not a strength build and angel has the spells).
But with mythic charge on a pounce character, you will be killing in a round or two regardless.
Trickster melee reaches a point where it's overkill
With Aeon you have stuff like Zone of Predetermination which makes every d20 roll in the zone an automatic 11 (which would be pretty good for an AC tank), grant invulnerability to physical damage, and an area dispel against every creature spell effect in an area with +10 to the check. You're right that Aeon doesn't bring as much damage but for a tank character it could be fun to just make all enemies around you impotent.
I don't know how much of this was in the beta but they reworked a lot of Aeon so it has some good party buffs and aoe debuffs with the gazes. I'd guess he's planning to have other characters bring damage.
Also a DR and self heal tank
Because they can't make a good AI nor challenging encounters so they resort to stat bloat.
probably because tabletop RPG mechanics are inherently a broken mess of badly designed dogshit that weren't good even in the context they were made for
The worst kind of difficulty modifier is the one that just increases enemy HP. It makes fights tedious. Increase their damage, instead. Remove the margin of error from the player, making the fight more tense.
The best form of higher difficulty would lower your hp and increase both yours and the enemy's damage.
>everyone single one is guilty of this crime
>NWN
>Pillars
>fricking Pathfinder
AC tanking is strong in all of those. Especially pathfinder. In pillars you pretty much become invincible with enough Armor/Deflection. NWN is a joke.
I wish NWN was more challenging. Always replay it and NWN2 every few years and you basically just walk through the game and win. Especially as a warlock in NWN2.
Warlock in NWN2 is just like Kineticist in PF:KM.
>Non-magical tanking becomes impossible
Why would you tank a damage in d20 inspired game?
In that kind of setting powerlevels are high enough that combat becomes rocket tag with alpha strike priority.
If by "round" 3 or 4 there are targets that are:
a) not dead
b) not under cc
Then you are not fit to play on hardest difficulty.
>Pillars
Literally everything is viable if you aren't a frickwit and micro properly. Doesn't matter how jank it looks on paper, it will work. Game's flexible as frick. I've no fricking idea what you could be fricking up, but unless you're wildly underleveled, you should be fine.
Harder difficulties should demand you use better tactics in combat more than it should demand better builds. If your build is the most important deciding aspect on whether you succeed or fail, you are probably playing a bad game.
>unfair build
>r u an arcane caster
>if no, try new build
>I have over 1500 hours on PFKM, and I only play Challenging+Last Azlanti. Lost about 20 toons and finished the game only once. The survivability of characters that can cast Mirror Image vs those who cannot is like day and night.
>Yes, I know, the origins of Mirror Image goes back all the way D&D 2nd edition—basically prehistory. So, it is not like the devs can "fix" it in any way. But it is astoundingly unbalanced:
>Displacement, a lvl 3 spells, leaves a 50% chance to hit to an attacker. Mirror Image, on the other hand, leaves a 1/(N+1) chance to hit to an attacker, where N is the number of images. Yes, it needs to be replenished by recasting, but even when a single image is left, it is essentially still as good as Displacement.
>Yes, also, it is penetrated by true seeing etc. But for big dumb monsters—trolls, hodags etc.—it is basically like several overlapping casts of Displacement. And those big dumb melee monsters are the most dangerous game enders on Last Azlanti, with just a few lucky crit rolls.
>For a front liner on Last Azlanti. it is superhard to survive WITHOUT Mirror Image, which is only self cast unlike Displacement.
>If Mirror Image were a lvl 6 spell, it would still be my first pick on, e.g., a Magus or a Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight and filling almost all spell uses at that level...
if you balance your game around this shit on the hardest difficulty, you are a bad dev
Yes, Pathfinder was balanced around cheese.
>if you balance your game around this shit on the hardest difficulty, you are a bad dev
Tell me you dont know shit about Pathfinder without telling me you dont know shit about Pathfinder.
Wow, the irony is sickening on this one.
And yet its still lost on you.
Ill give you a hint: Pathfinder was never a good system it was designed by autistic grogs for autistic grogs.
I mean they call it Unfair Difficulty for a reason, what the frick do you want from it?
Something other than flat stat increases and +200% enemy damage, why not just give the enemy auto-hit and auto-crit per attack? Functionally it provides the same gameplay experience.
>d20 game
>Tanking
Standing in doorways isn't tanking. D20s have no tactical depth beyond alpha strike.
y-You don't understand, I stacked buffs and precasted every single defensive spell (as the guides say), I'm a fricking tactical and strategical genius!
No wrpg is difficult because they all have save states built in.
Those are all high fantasy games with a known unbalance towards magic powers. Of course trying to go full mundane is only gonna get you rekt.
Hell nevermind tanking, most mundane classes are completely incapable of hurting high level enemies without magic weapons.
>While you can compare games cross-category if mechanics align sufficiently, this is not the case with Dark Souls vs RTwP (and other Real-Time RPG combat such as WoW-style MMOs)
To be clear, I mean in terms of the role of HP in the gameplay.
Certain specific things in Dark Souls can be relevant to discussion of RPG combat, but rarely in a big picture kind of way. You can compare/contrast approaches to stat scaling on damage or how the damage types work. You can look at some items and spell functions. Though even there you're starting to get into awkward territory.
>Pillars
Fighters are actually good in that, so it doesn't apply.