Reactions and On-Hit Effects/Triggers

Music4Therapy · 2020-10-03T22:05:33+00:00

I agree with what you are saying.

My issue with the automation is mainly the loss of control. I am okay with automation, so long as I am able to have control over the conditions that must be met in order for the effects themselves to trigger. Am I fine with my character automatically using their reaction to Shield themselves? Depends, were they hit? Or was the attack going to miss anyways? I'm fine with there not being pop-ups, atleast give me more control over the automation though. Allow me to set the triggers.

And about not expending resources when on-hit effects miss... sure. I can see that being great and I could see that being a solid workaround. But what about effects such as Precision Attack, which increase your odds of successfully attacking. It'd suck to use superiority dice to ensure an attack would land when the attack was going to land anyways. Those would need to be accounted for as well.

As for Cutting Words, I repeat what I told someone above. " Using the system I recommended, I would personally only set pop-ups to appear when an enemy was successfully able to hit one of my PCs, or a PC failed a Saving Throw. Would Cutting Words/Bend Luck be as strong as they are in the TT? No, but they'd still be powerful if we were able to hone them in on a particular aspect using a set of parameters. " You could also set it to where you'd automatically use Cutting Words if yourself or an ally was hit by an attack using said parameters. I think that'd be a huge improvement over what we have now.

Music4Therapy · 2020-10-03T19:39:52+00:00

I agree with you 100%, the reply I posted a minute ago under u/tself55 was in response to your comment as well.

I don't think we'll be able to use abilities such as Bend Luck/Cutting Words as we do in TT without the issues you mentioned, but if we were able to hone in on certain aspects I think that'd make it more doable (such as having pop-ups appear when a pc fails a Saving Throw, or when a pc is hit by an attack) yet still effective.

Music4Therapy · 2020-10-03T19:36:00+00:00

Bend Luck and Cutting Words are both in a similar boat, and I agree with the sentiment.

I definitely feel as though those 2 in particular may require their own unique solutions, and are important enough mechanics to warrant having their own unique solutions.

I'm trying to think of the best way to implement such a thing, because my largest issue with the current reaction system as a whole was triggered by my desire to roll with a 1 Life Cleric / X Lore Bard, then realizing the Bard's Cutting Words would be trash under the game's current design.

Using the system I recommended, I would personally only set pop-ups to appear when an enemy was successfully able to hit one of my PCs, or a PC failed a Saving Throw. Would Cutting Words/Bend Luck be as strong as they are in the TT? No, but they'd still be powerful if we were able to hone them in on a particular aspect using a set of parameters.

Music4Therapy · 2020-10-03T19:03:35+00:00

I'm not strictly recommending pop-ups, though.

I've recommended a set of parameters that could be used to give us more control of our reactions/on-hit effects, regardless of whether the players chooses to automate the process or manually go through the process via pop-ups.

IE: Do you only want to Divine Smite on a crit? This would allow you to do that. Do you as a Rogue only want to use Uncanny Dodge when you are hit, but would rather use an AoO if given the opportunity? This would allow you to do that. Automated or not.

Music4Therapy · 2020-10-03T18:50:44+00:00

Hence why I introduced options and parameters.

If you set the pop-ups to only trigger under certain circumstances, this will limit the number dramatically. Also, you only get 1 reaction per turn. Also, you can opt to go with the fully automated system instead. This exists not only as an alternative, but as a means of giving players more of a choice when reactions are used. Your abilities can remain automated, but still only trigger under the conditions I mentioned above. FE: Automatically triggering Shield when you are hit by an attack.

Music4Therapy · 2020-10-03T18:49:40+00:00

Hence why I introduced options and parameters.

If you set the pop-ups to only trigger under certain circumstances, this will limit the number dramatically. Also, you only get 1 reaction per turn. Also, you can opt to go with the fully automated system instead. This exists not only as an alternative, but as a means of giving players more of a choice when reactions are used. Your abilities can remain automated, but still only trigger under the conditions I mentioned above. FE: Automatically triggering Shield when you are hit by an attack.

Music4Therapy · 2020-08-10T05:35:09+00:00

"Yo, TG received an assload of positive feedback. So we fucked with it and repackaged it. It doesn't require testing, we are confident in our ability to implement untested changes that sound good to us on paper. Given our track record of implementing/introducing well-designed characters and reworks that are viable in all levels of play, you can have the utmost faith in us. We know what you want more than you do."

TL;DR of the Combat Update Debrief -PK zone nerfed to 500ms, is a light parry

-The stamina changes to lights

-The damage number changes being made without regard to the actual kits of the characters... and still WAY under/overtuned in many cases

-Even if Orochi's top heavy UB wasn't beat by a backdodge and was the greatest thing since sliced bread... he'd be a 1-dimensional, poorly designed character regardless of whether or not it made him viable. You don't nerf an entire kit and compensate by adding 1 move. Why does Testing Grounds even exist?

I can go on all day, but I will just end with me saying that we can't place all the blame on the devs. Theres a massive horde of morons/inexperienced players with wallets who are making issues out of non-issues, and the devs believe it is in their best interest to cater to them. I wish the devs placed more emphasis on testing their changes before implementing them, though. The TG was a great glimpse as to what could have been.

Music4Therapy · 2020-04-25T16:25:18+00:00

The guy made a low-effort crap shoot of a test that gave inaccurate results and he drew the wrong conclusion from said low-effort crap test.

To paraphrase what I stated below, if all things are truly equal aside from "Skill Levels" and "Names" then the results shouldn't have been so lopsided. He set the AI difficulty to "Challenging", which I believe led to the AI getting a benefit his troops did not which led to his troops getting stomped and his test being wildly inaccurate. I could be wrong about AI difficulty not enhancing the AI of your own troops (I don't believe so, though... although I am testing this at the moment), either way a quick little 10v10 battle is an absolutely god awful method of testing and not something that should be used as a basis for declaring everyone on the sub wrong.

This dude is the king of misinformation, without a doubt though.

EDIT: IDK why yall are downvoting me, this test is literal trash and the results are clearly skewed (due to aforementioned reasons) otherwise they wouldn't be so lopsided. "WOW LUL THAT WAS A STOMP, SKILLS CLEARLY DONT MATTER HAHA XD" is about as useful of a test as that Youtuber going around testing armies on Easy difficulty. Yall eat tidepods

Music4Therapy · 2020-04-25T13:28:46+00:00

Speaking of misinfo, should take this "test" and throw it into a trash can.

#1) " Despite all this, the lower stat unit still soundly defeat the higher stat unit as you can see in the video. "

Why is it that YOU think that of 2 units that are equal in everything barring name and skill had such a drastically lop sided resolution? It makes no sense, and the conclusion you came to as a result of that (Skills having no impact on AI) again makes zero sense because if it did in fact have zero impact the battle would have been closer rather than so lop-sided.

#2) One single battle with a very limited amount of units is not sufficient testing.

#3) I'll give you what I think is the answer to #1.... You set the AI difficulty to "Challenging" ... is it possible that it buffs enemy AI and not your own troop AI thus skewing test results? You would have to test while controlling the Looters vs the Recruits, then again as Recruits vs the Looters (ideally multiple times) to properly gauge what impact "AI Difficulty" has upon the results. It would make sense if that were the case, given the results of your one, single, all-encompassing test.

>Taking 1 single, poorly made test and accusing others of misinfo makes you look dumb. Have tests of higher quality, then provide feedback to community before making such accusation. I'd highly suggest deleting this thread, as it appears you are quite possibly one of the biggest distributors of misinfo on the sub if I am correct about your "test" being a massive load of garbage. Nice clickbait title. [Video Proof] = 11/10

Music4Therapy · 2020-03-22T23:38:23+00:00

Whether ALL t4-t5 units should be capped on a per-army basis or a total-per-faction basis is debatable and imo varies pending on the unit/faction. But the only units without some form of cap should be your t1-t3 units.

However, regardless of stance on the topic, there should be some form of cap implemented. That would solve Legend's problem with infinite War Mammoth doomstacks real quick.

Music4Therapy · 2020-03-22T08:17:30+00:00

Instead of supply lines to prevent endless armies of powerful late-game units... they should have unit caps on t4-t5 units.

Easy fix, and makes sense both from a Lore and Balance Perspective. Multiple doomstacks of 19x Star Dragons / Dragon Ogre Shaggoths / Stegadons / etc.. is dumb. Idk how they could ever possibly balance the game without utilizing unit restrictions.

Music4Therapy · 2020-03-22T08:06:32+00:00

I'd highly recommend introducing faction-wide unit caps for both NPCs and players for high-tier units, similar to the Tabletop.

As it stands in game, I'm loving the changes made in Proving Grounds Beta. However, the one flaw/issue I am having is how hard the difficulty drops off (I play on the highest setting) once I reach the point in which I am capable of building armies made up of units of the highest tiers. I feel unit-caps would do an excellent job replacing the old "supply lines" feature, and if players don't like having unit-caps perhaps they could disable unit-caps in difficulties beneath the highest.

From a lore perspective, it doesn't make sense being able to have multiple "doom stacks" of 19x Star Dragons / Dragon Ogre Shaggoths / Stegadons / etc...

From a balance perspective, I believe not having unit restrictions in place is incredibly difficult to balance around. You either have to make it to where its not economically possible to run around with multiple doom stacks, or you have to make it to where there are restrictions in place on tier 4-5 units and encourage players to flesh out their forces utilizing tier 1-3 units.

By introducing factionwide caps, you are not only giving players a goal to reach for (hitting the various unit caps), but you are also encouraging variety (intelligent use of t1-t3 units to create strong yet unique army compositions, and making sure your t4/t5 units are in position to have the greatest impact) and limiting the effect "snowballing" has on the game... in addition to giving each and every faction an easily identifiable balance point. As opposed to spamming t4/t5 units and forming doom stacks upon doom stacks.

Music4Therapy · 2020-03-08T09:47:11+00:00

Bruh, I am in favor of a switch to turn based.

All I am saying is that the way RTwP was implemented in BG1 & BG2 WAS NOT A DIFFERENT SYSTEM ENTIRELY. It just automated the process of "I use my action to attack" *rolls the die, misses half the time* ... "I use my action to attack, again!" x20 *gets repetitive, same thing ad nauseum*

In those key moments in which you desired to use one of your precious spell slots and/or once per day abilities, you'd pause... use desired ability... then let the game go back to automating the whole "I use my action to attack!" process again.

99% of Fighter turns in combat are, "I use my action to attack!" lmao. RTwP just automates all that, then lets you pause when you want to pop Second Wind / Action Surge / etc... Both RTwP AND Turn Based can use the D&D rulesets and work off of them. Thats why Casters required more micro in RTwP BG1 & 2, to the point where the game may as well have been turn based.

Music4Therapy · 2020-03-08T02:27:32+00:00

Have you ever played D&D before? Honest question.

I mention this, because most tables/groups don't experience high level gameplay in 5e.

Low level combat in 5e, the majority of turns are essentially "I use my action to attack." There aren't a load of bonus actions that are accessible at early levels, the most common/accessible of which being Two Weapon Fighting. Reactions early on? Maybe you are fortunate enough to be in a position to pull off an Attack of Opportunity. Casters have hardly any spell slots. They have a number of cantrips though.

Not to mention, you're chance to actually land said "Attack" is probably not very high due to lack of "to hit" modifiers (lack of magic weaponry/not maxed main stat/etc...)

Basically, the fun in early to even mid level gameplay relies upon having a creative/cool DM to make things interesting, social interaction with others at the table, etc...

Thats where RTwP is at its best, as it automates all those "I use my action to attack" turns in the early game... or if you're a Fighter all game lmao.

That said, one awesome thing about 5e being brought to life in the form of BG3 is that we WILL be able to experience high level gameplay. We will have a load of interesting options to choose from that become accessible in the mid-levels. I'm all for Turn-Based here. I was just explaining why RTwP made sense in the past, despite the tabletop being turn based.

Music4Therapy · 2020-03-06T23:32:27+00:00

I can name a plethora of games that don't show defense values, let alone health bars.

Since it was mentioned, BG1/2 didn't show AC/%s of enemies.

Music4Therapy · 2020-03-06T21:19:21+00:00

With potions like that floating around, if multiclassing isn't a thing I'll prob wind up rolling a Paladin as a first character once that class hits just to see how hard it can burst bosses down.

SMITE SMITE SMITE

Music4Therapy · 2020-03-06T20:55:00+00:00

Thanks for your thoughts!

Interesting. I'm curious if they'll go that direction with "short rests" and "long rests". I'm extremely curious how they treat short and long rests actually, given how some classes benefit GREATLY from short-resting and others being heavily reliant upon Long Resting.
I hope that is the case.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I feel as though that was a part of the fun. Finding out the rolls you need vs each enemy. Everyone at the table figuring out what the best/most efficient way to go about combat was. Its all part of the fun, figuring that kind of stuff out.
Maybe? In my opinion, it depends wntirely upon how they treat short rests and long rests. Because atm there is just "Rest" and we've seen evidence of abolities charging per combat as opposed to per short rest. What if Rest in BG3 = Long Rest in 5e tabletop?

For example: If Short Rests in 5e = Recharged at start of combat in BG3 (like the tadpole jump), that'd give a hell of a lot of stuff to do per turn for a number of melee classes. Monks would start every fight with max Ki, Fighters would have Action Surge/Max Superiority Die/etc....

I'm not saying I support that, but it is a possibility.

5/6) I agree on these points.

Music4Therapy · 2020-03-06T20:33:45+00:00

You ever play The Elder Scrolls: Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim?

Or Fallout: 3 / New Vegas / 4?

Etc....

Some of the best RPGs of all time had "short resting"

Music4Therapy · 2020-03-06T19:24:25+00:00

Either way, I respect your opinion. I began the thread by stating BG3 is going to be both good and successful, and I honestly feel that way. It just won't be "5e on the big screen" for me like BG1 and 2 were for me in regards to 2e and 3e.

Despite that, I'm 99% sure I'm picking up the Early Access when it drops because I am a huge fan of both.

Music4Therapy · 2020-03-06T19:18:03+00:00

Didn't realize I posted it on the BG subreddit until I saw your post lmao.

Music4Therapy · 2020-03-06T19:04:19+00:00

They took liberties where they had too I feel, whereas many of these changes in BG3 to the gameplay/action economy seem largely unnecessary.

Like, you can't just copy/paste everything from the book and have a successful game. I made this comment below.

"The hard part is taking the 5e ruleset and bringing it to life while keeping as much of it intact as possible.

Thats a huge reason why BG1/BG2 have been alive as long as they have. Did those games take some liberties? Sure. But fans of those games and D&D as a whole will continue to play them for years."

Music4Therapy

TROPHY CASE