It's official Turn Based beat RTwP in the CRPG wars.

[Sreggin Etah I]

pre-buff bad mmkay

I wanted to cut you some slack as the IE games were very generous with pre-buffs at higher levels, but actually, having pre-buffs out the ass is a good thing, so you can't cast them all before the first ones expire, so you have to choose a bit.

And prepping before combat is a must, simulation wise.

The problem is not just pre buff, but that there are too many of them and that they can stack on top of each other, each giving a modifier bonus, you can trivialize most battles in IE by stacking them before battle.

Pre buff would make sense if you had to strategically choose which to cast before battle, for example Protection From Fire should not be able to stack with Stoneskin, you either go with the elemental defense or physical defense. in IWD Hope, Courage, Bless, Chant.. are all similar in that they give some offensive modifier bonus, they all can stack too which is dumb design, choose just one! Haste should not be able to stack with any other buff in my opinion, too powerfull on its own. Magic Weapons stacking with others buffs is fine imo, would also make them less meh. This all would go against making a faithful adaptation of DnD, well whatever, for me IE combat as it is, is bad.

 

[Üstad]

I remember the times where turn based combat is very frowned upon except by nerds, it was around the times spending too much time on internet equated with having no friends. But turn based combat seems to getting respect again rather than seen as nerd niche genre. Or maybe I just lost connection with normies and their tastes.

 

[0sacred]

as long as it doesn't trivialize the early game I couldn't give less of a shit

 

[Camel]

seems like it was a good decision to me. You can't pre-buff to automatically win battles i now assume, "i have to think oh the horror!" IE players are popamole.

Balance normal and easy difficulties assuming no buffs before combat except the hardest encounters, problem solved. Anything higher than normal difficulty should assume pre-buffing before combat. Any party with working brains can use spells with an hour/level or 10-minute/level duration and they can be cast well before you go into the dungeon, assault the dragon lair, enter the damned forest, etc.
Pathfinder 2e mentions “pre-buffing” in it's rules.

Before a Fight​

Casting advantageous spells before a fight (sometimes called “pre-buffing”) gives the characters a big advantage, since they can spend more combat rounds on offensive actions instead of preparatory ones. If the players have the drop on their foes, you usually can let each character cast one spell or prepare in some similar way, then roll initiative.


Casting preparatory spells before combat becomes a problem when it feels rote and the players assume it will always work—that sort of planning can’t hold up in every situation! In many cases, the act of casting spells gives away the party’s presence. In cases where the PCs’ preparations could give them away, you might roll for initiative before everyone can complete their preparations.

 

[luj1]

Nothing wrong with pre buffing or vancian spellcasting

 

[Sreggin Etah I]

Camel​

Not sure why you're quoting tabletop games, when they play differently than IE games.

Casting preparatory spells before combat becomes a problem when it feels rote and the players assume it will always work—that sort of planning can’t hold up in every situation! In many cases, the act of casting spells gives away the party’s presence. In cases where the PCs’ preparations could give them away, you might roll for initiative before everyone can complete their preparations.

This does not apply to IE games!

 

[Sreggin Etah I]

Balance normal and easy difficulties assuming no buffs before combat except hardest encounters, problem solved. Anything higher than normal difficulty should assume pre-buffing before combat.

Oh! so in the harder difficulties you want pre buff orgies before every battle? yeah no fucking thanks bro, i rather play a game that has a good combat system, designed for video games, not some shitty RTwP adaptation of tabletop games.

 

[luj1]

Nothing wrong with pre buffing or vancian spellcasting

Sreggin Etah I What do you suggest?

 

[Oropay]

Pre-buffing was somewhat annoying even in BG3. I would add Jaheira to my party just to cast feast and longstrider on everyone every morning, which I guess was a pain mostly because of the hassle of swapping party members

 

[Blutwurstritter]

The problems with buffs in the IE games is that there is essentially no downside to it. There is little to no opportunity cost or drawback. And quick loading allows you to check what buff you need in the upcoming fight and to apply it. The single slot system of the fifth edition is a little bit too restrictive in my opinion but in principle a step in the right direction. I think a few more slots and different types of slots would be a good solution, where some would require concentration and some not. It could also be made more interesting by adding a few more mechanics like dispelling and effects that occur when concentration is broken. This would also open the door to interesting feats to distinguish mages that want to focus on buffs/debuffs, damage or summoning, etc.

 

[Sreggin Etah I]

Sreggin Etah I What do you suggest?

Some alternatives to IE system:

A game that does not have dozens of buffs that can all stack on top of each other. The most basic and non retarded design that IE games failed, casting dozens of buffs before each challenging battle kills the pacing of a game, and they did not even balance the game around it, Haste is broken.

Each buff does something entirely different and you have to strategically choose which for each situation and not just stack all of them together.

Time matter and enemies that dispell are common.

Resource Management, so using buffs take up resources, Wizardry 1-5 and its clones does that, or just make them consumable items. Speaking of it, next time i play Icewind Dale again, i will only use buffs from scrolls, that will be my rule.

No pre-buff, can still be badly done if there's no downside to casting them in battle.

No buffs spells, controversial yeah, but there are non fantasy games out there with no buffs and have great combat system, they don't need them. In a lot of RPGs i played, buffing just becomes busywork, not a fun or interesting mechanic.

 

[Butter]

The IE pre-buffing problem is actually a consequence-free rest anywhere problem.

 

[luj1]

Yeah. That's why good modules have rest restrictions and enemies using dispel on you. It's not a Vancian problem.

 

[Cryomancer]

seems like it was a good decision to me. You can't pre-buff to automatically win battles now i assume, "i have to think oh the horror!" IE players are popamole.

Play BG2 with SCS mod.

Not allowing buffing out of combat lead to the following situation

Fighter : HEy Druid, we are going to the forest of deadly poisons, can you cast a spell to protect me from poison and prepare some antidots?
Druid : No, my spell only works when you are in a fight
Fighter : fine, lets spare a bit, them you cast the spell and we end in a draw
Druid : No, the spell loses the effect after the fight is over
Fighter : Fine, I will go to the forest of deadly poisons without any magical or natural protection against poison if you insist so much

After a long combat, the fighter is poisoned and dying from poison

Druid : OMG, the fighter will gonna die, I must cast immunity to poison but I can't cuz we are not in battle, quick fighter, attack me so I can save you!!!

 

[MerchantKing]

Resetera's opinion.

Resetera's opinion.

Anyone brave enough to stand by their "RTwP good" opinion now?

A broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Sreggin Etah I]

Not allowing buffing out of combat lead to the following situation

Fighter : HEy Druid, we are going to the forest of deadly poisons, can you cast a spell to protect me from poison and prepare some antidots?
Druid : No, my spell only works when you are in a fight
Fighter : fine, lets spare a bit, them you cast the spell and we end in a draw
Druid : No, the spell loses the effect after the fight is over
Fighter : Fine, I will go to the forest of deadly poisons without any magical or natural protection against poison if you insist so much

After a long combat, the fighter is poisoned and dying from poison

Druid : OMG, the fighter will gonna die, I must cast immunity to poison but I can't cuz we are not in battle, quick fighter, attack me so I can save you!!!

Sounds like a larping problem. Aso removing poison is not a buff.

edit2: why didn't the Druid cast protection against poison during combat?

 

[Cryomancer]

larping problem. Aso removing poison is not a buff.

Giving poison immunity is.

Anyway, was just an example. Imo game mechanics and lore must be in line. If you only care about gamey stuff, you get atrocious systems like pf2e and d&d 4e, poe and etc.

Btw, part of the appeal of rpg is the power fantasy. I am playing rogue trader beta and Argenta with a sniper shot destroyed the cover and killed two enemies behind it.

 

[His Dudeness]

They both have their merits.

 

[barricade]

For example, to support what i was saying, Lilura calls itself a tactical combat gameplay fag, her entire blog is focused on combat and gameplay:

https://lilura1.blogspot.com/p/crpg-reviews.html

yet she gave Baldur's Gate III only a 2.5 while giving broken RTwP combat of Baldur's Gate I a 8.7 and II a 6.5, she does not give any explanation to this, how i'm supposed to take her blog seriously if she is not going review the games objectively? at this point this is just a boomer circlejerk.

lol lilura's blog is the most biased bullshit i've ever read.

just look at this page: https://lilura1.blogspot.com/p/crpg-design.html

underrail combats: rated 6, bg3 combats: rated 2 (??? i didn't like that game at all but 2 out of 10? really?) but in the meantime she rated arcanum combats 6.5 out of 10.

6.5/10? pretty weird (or biased?) coming from someone who said "Arcanum is a good role-playing game. It is not a good combat game. Know what you're dealing with"
=> https://lilura1.blogspot.com/2020/0...ahs-House-Spirit-of-Brehgo-Fahrkus-Shack.html

so now arcanum is a bad combat game? well then, why the 6.5/10 score?

but people here keep praising her for whatever reason.

 

[Max Damage]

Only thing Arcanum's combat good for is easy minmaxing, on both mechanics and encounter design it's abysmal.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

Buff orgies

I buff you, you buff me, that's how this party goes around.

 

[Blutwurstritter]

Buff orgies

I buff you, you buff me, that's how this party goes around.

I never leave the house without protection and always have a grease spell prepared.

 

[Nachy]

I always found combat in RPGs as a means to an end. Not to say combat isn't an important element to an RPG, but what matters is if the developers actually are being thoughtful with the method of combat they're going with and how it will play along with the rest of their systems.

I think it just so happens it's easier to design complex RPG systems and conditions with turn-based combat because developers don't have to worry about the variances and more dynamic numbers going on the fly within a real-time environment. The real problem with bad RTwP RPG games is that it was used as a lazy way to add complexity and character progression to a game's combat without putting much thought into the design, in a similar way a lot of modern games just slap upgrade systems, numbers, and dialog choices on an open-world action game and call it an RPG.

I wish more RTwP tried to go in the direction that Freedom Force did. Everything in the environment felt tangible and interactive, with physics being a factor too, and taking full advantage of that it's a real-time game. It still maintained great importance with status effects, attributes, and other factors too, since your actions are still heavily influenced by your character's stats and an AP system. It's a great mix of the number-crunching RPGs are known for while giving player urgency in the form of dynamic real-time positioning.

To give a somewhat relevant (but non-cRPG) example of combat being a means to an end, I always found the main thing the Yakuza games are good at is being a smorgasbord adventure game where you explore a small yet tightly packed dense setting, and you progress through everything in your own pace. The beat-em-up gameplay is serviceable and fun, but it's nowhere near as refined and complex as dedicated arcade action/brawler games have done, and most of the actual character progression is just in the form of unlocking new and better moves to add to your toolset. Yakuza 7 going turn-based still retained pretty much the main things the previous games were good at and are known for, and the new form of combat isn't exactly better or worse, but just different and gives a refreshing change to the vehicle you use to get through obstacles. End of the day both combat methods worked well enough to serve their purpose and focused on the rest of the elements that made both games enjoyable.

 

[scytheavatar]

I always found combat in RPGs as a means to an end. Not to say combat isn't an important element to an RPG, but what matters is if the developers actually are being thoughtful with the method of combat they're going with and how it will play along with the rest of their systems.

I think it just so happens it's easier to design complex RPG systems and conditions with turn-based combat because developers don't have to worry about the variances and more dynamic numbers going on the fly within a real-time environment. The real problem with bad RTwP RPG games is that it was used as a lazy way to add complexity and character progression to a game's combat without putting much thought into the design, in a similar way a lot of modern games just slap upgrade systems, numbers, and dialog choices on an open-world action game and call it an RPG.

I wish more RTwP tried to go in the direction that Freedom Force did. Everything in the environment felt tangible and interactive, with physics being a factor too, and taking full advantage of that it's a real-time game. It still maintained great importance with status effects, attributes, and other factors too, since your actions are still heavily influenced by your character's stats and an AP system. It's a great mix of the number-crunching RPGs are known for while giving player urgency in the form of dynamic real-time positioning.

To give a somewhat relevant (but non-cRPG) example of combat being a means to an end, I always found the main thing the Yakuza games are good at is being a smorgasbord adventure game where you explore a small yet tightly packed dense setting, and you progress through everything in your own pace. The beat-em-up gameplay is serviceable and fun, but it's nowhere near as refined and complex as dedicated arcade action/brawler games have done, and most of the actual character progression is just in the form of unlocking new and better moves to add to your toolset. Yakuza 7 going turn-based still retained pretty much the main things the previous games were good at and are known for, and the new form of combat isn't exactly better or worse, but just different and gives a refreshing change to the vehicle you use to get through obstacles. End of the day both combat methods worked well enough to serve their purpose and focused on the rest of the elements that made both games enjoyable.

You basically answered the question as to why RTWP has to die : would Freedom Force really be a worse game if it was turn based only? Like why exactly do you want to give players "urgency"?

 

[Decado]

The IE pre-buffing problem is actually a consequence-free rest anywhere problem.

100% correct. Any time someone is talking about weaknesses in IE combat or systems design and doesn't mention the fact that resting is completely busted is missing the biggest problem. Resting in IE games allows you to bypass the most important restrictions of the Vancian system; it turns magic in a tactical asset to be used on a per-encounter basis instead of a longer-term resource that has to be managed over a whole scenario (a dungeon delve, a forest, etc.). There is no penalty for stacking a shitload of pre-buffs, so everyone stacks a shitload of pre-buffs.

On the other hand, Pillars of Eternity is a good example of game that could have used a better pre-buff system, like the way vampires can instacast confusion/domination at the start of combat, while you cannot cast the level six Prayer Against Treachery until combat has already started -- for no good reason, I might add. Why the fuck can't a priest pray before combat? Dumb.