If 9 times out of 10 when I play a battle I have to save scum it, that's too hard.
I have the ratio the other way around ... therefore i believe you do something wrong. O_o
each time I beat it, I had to basically prep first.
I dont see how is that wrong ...
In the past, you (or someone else, dunno to be completely honest) were talking here about knowledge from past playthrough ... i dont quite understad why would you need that ... you see enemies, you can easily see they are potentialy hostile, and certainly dangerous, you even see their level, so you can estimate their potential power (wich is not exactly roleplay aspect i admit ... but from that perspective they have A F*CKING DRAGON ON THEIR SIDE
) ... what is in Roleplay perspective wrong about preparing?
If you ever seen any historical movie, its quite common when two armies meet each other, that diplomats are send forward first, while rest of the army is standing there prepared for worse ... that is your character.
I dont say you "have to do that" ... its possibility, and in my honest opinion that possibility it perfectly legit for first playthrough, when you (logicaly) dont have any experience from previous play.
And if things goes worse ...
There is allways reload. :P
How?
You come from a "This is a Video Game so it should behave like a Video Game and players should save scum the crap out of the game in order to get through it" perspective.
I could challenge you to quote where i said that ...
OR, if you wanna save time i can ensure you that i didnt.
Im just listing posibilities you DO have ...
It dont matter if you choose to use them all, not not choose any of it ... but the less you choose to use, the harder the combat will be, and its nobody fault but yours. O_o
I shall not list them again ... but if you have wide variety of options ... on one tip of scales is by your own meaning "too hard combat" and on other tip of scales is "ridiculously easy combat" ... then, what are you looking for should be somewhere in the middle.
That is not any "video game perspective", just common sence. :-/
From this perspective, a battle is not fun unless you have to learn the gimmick necessary to defeat it.
In that case i dont quite understand how is that possible that i enjoy this fight, while not using those "gimmicks" whatever they are.
So, it is natural for you to view the encounter from the perspective that you should have to play through it multiple times in order to figure out how you need to position yourself beforehand in order to win.
That is the point ...
I dont play through it multiple times ... actualy i believe i died only twice, or thrice in this particular combat ... and it was only when i wanted to try some experimental tactics ... wich usualy prooved to be completely wrong.
My perspective is from a true RPG experience perspective.
I just love your modesty.
Basicaly you are telling me that your way is the only right way? O_o
We have obviously even different approach to RPG ...
In my experience (and especialy tabletop) anything you can justify with logic ... is okey in Roleplay perspective.
Hiding half party before fight, using buffs potions and possibly poisons ... all just preparing for the worse, wich ... from perspective of your character, wich does not have "quick save" would be perfectly legit before every fight.
:P
From my perspective, a DM/GM should NEVER put the players into a scenario where they will all die.
Maybe ...
But this is not scenario where they will all die ... this is scenario, where they CAN all die, and their chances for survival are not much high ... aka. challenging.
Wich basicaly, is description of almost every sessions i ever had.
(I dont say it was many of them ... but anyway, the point is the same.)
Why? Because in an RPG the entire concept is that you, the player, are ACTUALLY the person you are roleplaying. If you die in the game, that's it. Game over. Period. There is no continuing. You can't reload and try again.
I know that ... therefore is perfectly logic from this perspective to use any possible resource, or option you have ... especialy if you see that encounter you are about to have can be a little overwhelming. (F*CKING DRAGON!!!
)
You were telling me that your character ended up dead after first round ...
What outcome exactly your character expected when he, or she run in middle of four (potentialy five with Kithrak, actualy six including Lae'zel, and to be precise ... ten, since F*CKING DRAGON!!! certainy counts for more than one ... even tho Gimly would disagree) potentialy hostile enemies, that just burned whole squad of people, just bcs they argued. O_o
I would say it would be more than logical for your character to use some potion to raise his resistance ... some scroll to add some temporary hit points ... certainly some buff (not sure if Aid, is counting against False life for example) ... and possibly some spell that will raise his AC ...
All you need if few misses so you can survive.
So the whole point of a true RPG is that players should feel like heroes who can overcome any challenge thrown at them on the first attempt.
I agree, except the end ... the important word here is
challenge.
Where is that
challenge, if you win anything as you say "on the first attempt" ... or even worse, "no matter what you do"?
They are supposed to win every time. Again, the idea is that if you die even once, there is no coming back. No save scumming.
In this you are wrong ... that is the very nature of the word challenge ...
You get something you are suppose to overcome, but you have to try ... sometimes you try harder, sometimes you try less ... but when every "challenge" is created so you are ensured to win, there is no challenge at all. :-/
This said, I would still expect that the creators of the game will at least try to make each encounter winable on the first try without having to learn and exploit some sort of gimmicks they've created.
This is so beatifully covenient sentence.
Any approach i suggest is just "gimmick" in your eyes.
This is more philosofical question ...
Do you know why you dont use rules of Chess in Draughts ?
Bcs that is different game ... rules of one, dont aply to the other, and its completely fine that way.
Do you know why you dont use rules of Dragon Age in Baldurs Gate?
Same story ... different game, different rules.
But for some reason i dont quite understand, you keep using rules for DnD in Baldur's Gate ...
And feel ... no, even trying to convince us, that is the right way to play Baldur's Gate ... even tho you are telling us with that same breath, that game is "too hard" in your opinion, following that rules ... have you ever thought about that this might be source of your problem? O_o
You refuse to do, or use ... you created your challenge ... if that is too hard for you, maybe you created it wrong.
Again, I shouldn't have to save scum at all. Encounters should be hard and challenging and fun but not so difficult that I can't win on my first playthrough.
Define save scuming for me, please. :-/
Bcs i would say that save scuming in combat would be quick saving every single turn, and loading every time your character gets hit.
Certainly not loading the game for *some previous save* even if that one would be before the fight itself ... when your whole party die.
It might be conciderable save scuming, if you would reload the fight, using the same approach and hoping for better luck in RNG > therefore better result ... but as long as you are trying to at least sometimes use different abilities, its quite fine to restart whole thing, if your effort lead to your death ... in my opinion.
When I play an RPG, and my character is constantly dying and I have to reload my last save file, that isn't fun for me. It completely destroys the experience.
I understand this ...
And i believe you will understand that if you tune down every single fight so it can be done with little to no effort, since you "are suppose to win every time at first atempt" ... it will completely destroy my experience.
All i can suggest to you, is try different approach ...
This game have countless permutations, and it apply for combat too ... just check your options, and thing different strategy.
Oh, and btw, Tabletop IS relevant. I wish people would stop saying it isn't. This game is based on the Tabletop RPG. It is the source material. You can't expect us to NOT site the Tabletop when you are using the Tabletop as the source.
If i create game based on rules for chess ... i would expect people to use rules for my game, since chess would miss some things, and some other things would be different ...
You are right in that this game is BASED on tabletop ... but that is all.
This game have its own set of rules, some are simmilar, some are same, some are completely different, some were added, and some were removed ... therefore any experience you hav from tabletop, is experience from completely different ruleset and therefore it IS irellevant.
But the fact that they built it on 5e rules and said it was built on 5e rules, that gives me grounds to mention Tabletop and say that regardless of whether you are talking about the video game or the Tabletop, the encounter is too difficult.
As long as tabletop rules are not taken ingame 1:1 ...
You are wrong.
