Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Health bars are straight from arcade games, should be abandoned completely. There was a feat in fallouts (not bethesda abominations) to know approximately your enemy’s hps. This is what I call a good mechanic.

Making a research is a good practice when you want to enjoy a game with complex mechanics, can’t see any problem here. I hope these casual features will be left for story mode or something.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
A game can have complex mechanics and give us convenient informations like the %to hit according to me.

If combats were made arround D&D rather than Larian's wtf/OP layer and if the mechanics were properly implemented the game would be complex.

Obviously it's not at the moment but, still according to me, it's more about things like "turning arround a turn based frozen ennemy means advantage/surprise" than the %to hit.

Having a %to hit doesn't mean you cannot discover informations about your ennemies.

%to hit just give clues about the AC (and/or about ST/abilities if you highlight all of them with very specific spells to create his character sheet in your head, which is tedious).

Last edited by Maximuuus; 07/05/21 03:09 PM.
Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
%to hit just give clues about the AC (and/or about ST/abilities if you highlight all of them with very specific spells to create his character sheet in your head, which is tedious).
Resistances as well. How in the nine hells do we know about their resistances? Just scroll over and choose the less resistant target with your spell. You just know this, because tadpole.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by VenusP
Resistances as well. How in the nine hells do we know about their resistances? Just scroll over and choose the less resistant target with your spell. You just know this, because tadpole.
It's called an abstraction.

You see you theretically could create a game, that would fully symulate things like damage - perhaps every character model would have bloodvessels and with every every strike of the sword cuts would be tracked, blood would spill, and character would bleed out in simulated way.

But that would be difficult to do, and not very fun to engage with. Not in a game, not focused on cutting things to pieces at least.

Therefore - abstraction! We represent character wellbeing with HP. Each strike decresses HP. When HP goes to 0 the character is dead! So instead of finding tricky way of communicating how injured the create is, one can say: this create has 2HP out of 10HP total, and the player can easily translate it to: "This create is very hurt!". We can do it with numbers, we can do it with health bars. Pick your poison, it doesn't really matter.

BRILLIANT!

Same applies with resistances, and AC etc. And sure, perhaps ideally, devs could find ways to communicate those information in diegetic way (I am always a big fan of that), but the more stuff there is in the game, the harder it is to do. So an abstracted number and dice roll will do!

If, on the other hand, you just meant to criticise how tactically shallow DnD is, and that if players understand how system works there isn't much actual choice in how to proceed - you are right, it is not a very good system from gameplay perspecitve. But I never felt DnD was about being good gameplay wise - BG1&2 certainly weren't. It's about an ability to create adventures, and having systems which will give expression to various characters and creatures. If the game says: this character has high dex and will dodge your physical attacks, but will easily succumb to will attacks - yeah, that's not tactically interesting, but it's doing what it was designed to do. A DM might use numbers to spin a tale, but a cRPG is limited in that regard - so they will just show you enemy stats, and let visuals and your imagination to the storytelling. Not communicating that this enemy is agile, doesn't help in defining this enemy, which is worse, then simply showing you stats.

Joined: Apr 2021
V
VenusP Offline OP
member
OP Offline
member
V
Joined: Apr 2021
I am well aware how it called: arcade casual games. There’s no place for them in dnd cause they inflate many important things which were discussed already. Except maybe in a story mode.


Romances in RPGs brought us to this
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by VenusP
I am well aware how it called: arcade casual games.
lol. If that makes you feel better about yourself, sure.

Joined: Jan 2017
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Jan 2017
Mechanical abstraction is one thing. I don't think anyone here is arguing about that.

Starting the game with perfect knowledge of things you haven't encountered before handed to you, on the other hand, doesn't make a lot of sense. Personally, I enjoy the learning process. I like when my character isn't static and can take in new information about their world; particularly in situations like this, where the information is useful but not at all necessary to have.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by grysqrl
Starting the game with perfect knowledge of things you haven't encountered before handed to you, on the other hand, doesn't make a lot of sense.
I am just making a guess here, but in TableTop DnD sessions does DM conceal enemy stats, resistances, their health? Does gameplay revolve around some kind of "Battleship" mechanic? Swinging blind and seeing if you hit or miss? Casting counter spells until we find out what buff the enemy has actually active?

Or do players have limited access to info to encourage communication between players? DM needs to communicates how the battle is progressing and he hints enemy weaknesses and strenghts when describing it, players act out their health state after calculating damage etc.?

Because if it's the latter, that means game needs to communicate those things. Showing stats and health is the simplest way to do it, but if we want to remove healthbar and chances to hit, for immersion sake, fine. But how do we communicate this information in a different way? BG1-2 answer was creature health status descriptions, which is essencially a health bar. How do we communicate not only how much we missed, but also by how much. Was out miss caused by a magical effect? As it was discussed before, all those things could be conveyed through in-game graphics, but question remains if it would be practical, or effective.

Joined: Jan 2017
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Jan 2017
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by grysqrl
Starting the game with perfect knowledge of things you haven't encountered before handed to you, on the other hand, doesn't make a lot of sense.
I am just making a guess here, but in TableTop DnD sessions does DM conceal enemy stats, resistances, their health? Does gameplay revolve around some kind of "Battleship" mechanic? Swinging blind and seeing if you hit or miss? Casting counter spells until we find out what buff the enemy has actually active?

Or do players have limited access to info to encourage communication between players? DM needs to communicates how the battle is progressing and he hints enemy weaknesses and strenghts when describing it, players act out their health state after calculating damage etc.?

Because if it's the latter, that means game needs to communicate those things. Showing stats and health is the simplest way to do it, but if we want to remove healthbar and chances to hit, for immersion sake, fine. But how do we communicate this information in a different way? BG1-2 answer was creature health status descriptions, which is essencially a health bar. How do we communicate not only how much we missed, but also by how much. Was out miss caused by a magical effect? As it was discussed before, all those things could be conveyed through in-game graphics, but question remains if it would be practical, or effective.
It varies by DM, but generally in tabletop games that I've played, the DM reveals nothing off the bat (apart from a very rough physical description that you could get at a glance). You don't know any numerical value for a creature. If you want to know more, you can take time to study someone (which usually involves some kind of skill check and probably a stealth check if you're trying to be discreet). This might give you some more information about what to expect e.g. notice unusual things about the armor that suggest that it is magical or something about how they move or something about this creature's skin or how it reacts to things in the environment; you get clues, but it is very unusual for it to be in the form of "This creature has a 17AC and resistance to poison damage."

Or, you can just try attacking and see how effective it is. If an enemy has resistance to the kind of damage that you're dealing, the DM might say "that didn't seem to be as effective as you expected". If your attack roll of 17 misses but your ally hits with a 20, you have a pretty good idea of your enemy's AC. If there's magic involved, you will usually see someone casting a spell or doing something to activate an item - most magical buffs aren't just running 24/7. Your DM might mention when an enemy starts to get low on health (usually around 50% and/or 25% of max HP remaining, though it varies a lot). I've had some battles where knowing the HP of a large enemy really mattered and the DM let you spend your action making a perception check to assess the health of a creature you are fighting.

There are plenty of ways to communicate this information in a video game - I just don't want it given away for free; it should be earned.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
@grysqrl Thanks for the reply. I am still sceptic, as to benefit of hiding such info in a video game but will let you guys argue otherwise in peace. smile

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Wormerine
@grysqrl Thanks for the reply. I am still sceptic, as to benefit of hiding such info in a video game but will let you guys argue otherwise in peace. smile
Yeah, I don't think hiding AC or HP are good ideas either.

I am playing BG3 for the story and for combat. And not to read chat logs so I can figure out which target should I go for.

But to each their own I suppose.

Joined: Apr 2021
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Apr 2021
That's why my suggestion is that it should be automatic but over time. I also do not want to do the tedious work of keep checking everything for every fight. Over time your characters will get to know them and show the numbers on screen.

If they hit with fire they learn if it is resistant to fire or not. They keep that knowledge with them forever so if the same type of another enemy shows up you just know what they are weak to. The circle not only should just show % but should also show if they are resistant to the damage you are doing after that. For example it should say %80 to hit, enemy resistant to fire. Below it.

In easier difficulties, they can just know anyways. No need to do anything.

I know this isn't extremely dnd but my reasoning for this is that from what I see in dnd games combat comes second and story, role play, info gathering comes first. In this game you are in combat QUITE a lot. Which I like because this is a strategy video game, making a QoL improvement like this will make combats smoother rather than "oh I should check this" or " let me look at the combat log 200th time because I forgot what goblins were resistant to"

Joined: Nov 2017
Location: Detroit, MI
D
stranger
Offline
stranger
D
Joined: Nov 2017
Location: Detroit, MI
I have no problem with either the % to hit or the knowledge of resistances / vulnerabilities / remaining hitpoints. You have a party of several knowledgeable people, it's conceivable to say that they pooled their collective knowledge on these things at camp one night. Failing that, I have no problem with the "because tadpole" explanation, because it actually does do a fair job of explaining this.

As far as % to hit goes, just pretend the DM is giving you a penalty to hit because of the terrain / obstacles. It works out exactly the same, you just aren't seeing the attack roll.

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by DeeperThought
I have no problem with either the % to hit or the knowledge of resistances / vulnerabilities / remaining hitpoints. You have a party of several knowledgeable people, it's conceivable to say that they pooled their collective knowledge on these things at camp one night. Failing that, I have no problem with the "because tadpole" explanation, because it actually does do a fair job of explaining this.

As far as % to hit goes, just pretend the DM is giving you a penalty to hit because of the terrain / obstacles. It works out exactly the same, you just aren't seeing the attack roll.
I mean, the party isn't really that knowledgeable when you consider their backstories. Lae'zel has probably been isolated in Gith-world; Shadowheart doesn't remember a bunch; Tav is blank; and Astarion has lived as a slave for the past hundred years. Gale and Wyll are probably the most knowledgeable, and to me Wyll seems like he exaggerates his skills and Gale seems utterly absorbed with magic so it's reasonable he doesn't know much about goblins/etc.

Plus, in the full game release you'll be able to create an entire party of custom characters with 8 intelligence, 8 wisdom, no skills in nature or arcana, and all with the hermit/acolyte/urchin background. They will know exactly as much (everything) about the enemies as a party full of super-intelligent, super-wise rangers/scholars. I'd like it if nature and arcana checks, and just the Intelligence stat in general, were more rewarded.

I suppose it's possible that the tadpole is giving us specific knowledge about all enemies we encounter, but if so I'd prefer that it is presented in game. I don't remember any evidence of it giving us knowledge other than through dreams and telepathy...

Joined: Jan 2017
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Jan 2017
There is a system built into 5e to tell you exactly how knowledgeable someone is - you roll an intelligence check (of the type corresponding to the knowledge you are seeing if they possess) to see if they know a thing or not. This seems like a really natural way to reward players for investing in skills that don't necessarily get a ton of use otherwise. And it avoids the very weird notion of "well, my character is very knowledgeable; so if it's a thing that can be known, they definitely know it."

Joined: Nov 2015
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2015
It seems to me that giving % to hit only dumbs down the game for folks who aren't concerned to improve. Different characters get different percentages with different types of attacks. It's up to the player to process that information and figure out what, if anything, to change in order to be most effective fighting that type of enemy in the future.

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5