Thoughts/discussion/first impressions of Pillars of Eternity!

Where did I say I feel forced to explore everything?

How much you choose to explore or not doesn't matter, you still have the trash mobs and respawns to deal with.

Unless you don't explore at all, but then you wouldn't do much of anything except play house, I suppose.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
Where did I say I feel forced to explore everything?

How much you choose to explore or not doesn't matter, you still have the trash mobs and respawns to deal with.

I don't remember saying you did?

But you did say:

However, if you want to fully explore each area, there is no getting around those enemies that are there.

I replied that I had no such desire - and as such, don't have exploration OCD. No need to take it personally.

Yes, you have trash mobs and respawns to deal with. I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. I said I didn't feel forced to fight anymore than most other RPGs.

But it didn't ruin exploration for me. I would have preferred less combat - just like I would have preferred less combat in PoE. But I still enjoy exploring both games.

OK, I see why you brought OCD up. I just wanted people to understand that the issue exists even if you don't fully explore everything.

But I don't agree that there is the same amount of fighting in DA:I as in other RPGs. Spiderweb games, for example, have a LOT less, as does PoE so far per time spent, thank goodness.

I don't mind a high degree of combat in party-based RPGs as long as I find it enjoyable, and as long as there isn't a high rate of respawn. It's when I have to fight the same enemies over and over again that I quickly get tired of it.

I never felt like there was too much combat in BG, or even IWD, because the enemies in more than 90% of the areas in those games didn't respawn. The battles were also separated to a good degree due to what I felt was fairly realistic placement of the mobs.

What I don't like are systems like the one in DA:I where enemies constantly respawn, and, in some cases, even respawn out of thin air in close proximity to the player.

Well, I don't know about IWD2… as much as I enjoyed the game for what it was, the combat felt endless at times. It was an Infinity Engine capstone, for the BIS diehards who knew the combat mechanics and wanted to test their mettle.

Originally Posted by JDR13
What I don't like are systems like the one in DA:I where enemies constantly respawn, and, in some cases, even respawn out of thin air in close proximity to the player.

One of my memories from IWD2 has this happening and it really annoyed me at the time. Specifically in respect to the lizard dudes in that one cavern that you descend down into: 2-3 packs of enemies spawning both ahead and behind you after you take ten steps into the area.

Just to make it clear, I don't like respawns much either. It was definitely a downside in DA:I, but since the combat was easy and fast - I didn't mind it as much as I would have in a game like PoE.

Generally, I'm really not a fan of filler combat in games full of exploration - but I've gotten used to it, as it's the norm rather than the exception. It doesn't ruin the game unless the combat system is slow, too punishing or unwieldy. Wiz 8 is an example of that, for me - as is Dark Souls. If the combat system isn't in the way - I can deal with filler combat just as long as the game has other great things to enjoy.

Combat is just one aspect out of many that make up a rich game. It all depends on the combination of features and their implementation, coupled with personal preferences.

That's what makes the exchange of thoughts interesting around here, I find. Otherwise, we'd just sit around nodding all the time

I find that we're sometimes able to inspire each other to give a game a second chance, or to learn how to appreciate it more. That's hardly a bad thing

Quick question, is it possible to sneak attack with a ranger using bows or is it only possible in close range with a dagger/rogue? So is it class dependent and also range/melee/weapon type dependent?

Originally Posted by Lemonhead
Quick question, is it possible to sneak attack with a ranger using bows or is it only possible in close range with a dagger/rogue? So is it class dependent and also range/melee/weapon type dependent?

Sneak attacks are rogue-only, but can be done from range as well I believe. They happen when the rogue attacks a target with certain debuffs on them (flanked, prone, blinded etc.)

So: class-specific but weapon-independent.

Yes, you can sneak attack when ranged - though the Rogue "Backstab" ability needs you to be rather close to your target.

But it's harder to get sneak procs than in 3rd Edition, because flanking requires the target to be engaged by no less than 3 melee combatants. There are other states that will trigger sneak attacks, but I haven't found one that's ideal for normal encounters.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
flanking requires the target to be engaged by no less than 3 melee combatants.

Two are enough. One of them just needs to attack the target from behind.


The debuffs that work with sneak attacks are these (taken from the wiki):

Blinded, Flanked, Hobbled, Paralyzed, Petrified, Prone, Stuck, Stunned or Weakened, as well as when any target is struck within two seconds of combat starting.

While lots of classes have abilities or spells that apply these debuffs, I guess Ciphers are best suited for normal (easy) fights because they can a) apply most of those and b) all of their casts are effectively "per encounter" so they don't have to worry about running out of spells. They can even get a "group flank" spell.

Originally Posted by Arhu
Two are enough. One of them just needs to attack the target from behind.

Ok, I didn't know that - but it's pretty hard to make that happen in this game, as they tend to bunch up a lot, and you rarely have the chance to get behind an enemy at the front lines. Proper scripting would have made this kind of thing much less of a hassle.

While lots of classes have abilities or spells that apply these debuffs, I guess Ciphers are best suited for normal (easy) fights because they can a) apply most of those and b) all of their casts are effectively "per encounter" so they don't have to worry about running out of spells. They can even get a "group flank" spell.

Yeah, I know about the status effects - but I haven't found a spell that reliably causes any of these effects on enemies long enough for it to work well.

Since I only have my main char as a Rogue, it seems a bit much to try and micro a spell that may or may not work - for a short time - simply to get sneak attacks in, especially because I use guns, which have insane reload times. It would have been nice with the 3rd Edition system here, because being engaged in melee combat really should have been distracting enough for a sneak attack.

I'm not saying it's not doable, though, I guess I just haven't found the right spell for the job.

But it's no big deal, and I have 4 characters blasting guns at ranged - and sneak attacks aren't really needed.

I use the Finishing Blow move with my Rogue, if there's an enemy that needs to die ASAP

The first thing my cypher does is the Flanking Spell. The mage and the cipher both also have blinding spells. In addition the druid has a spell for Hobbling and Weakening the opponents (which I didn't use so far). So whenever my rogue attacks the enemies they have one debuff on them for most of the time. Not for the initial shot - but if the first shot is done within 2 seconds of the combat start it also counts as sneak attack.

You could actually go so far to say that my whole group prepares the opponents so that my Rogue can go and "collect them".
The Damage spread among the 4 characters longest in my party (stats reset upon switching party members):
Eder (used as Tank): 24h in combat, 8188 Damge
Durance (used as Healer+Buffer): 24h in combat, 3407 Damage
Aloth (used for Debuffing and Damage): 25h in combat, 13699 Damage
Kordanor (Rogue, used for Damage): 25h in combat, 25039 Damage

In retrospective however increasing Int on a rogue is probably not the wisest choice. At least not if you skill him as I do. The only skill int has an effect on is Blinding Strike, and that's almost neglectible.
I also do not use Finishing Blow as it is limited to 2 per Rest and I chose talents & abilities which give me constant damage boosts.

I am looking forward to the level 11 ability "Deathblows", which gives +100% damage (remember, these are additive, not multiplicative) whenever there are two of these debuffs on one opponent. Enemies will just explode all over the place.

Flanking and Blinding are very useful in any case. Blinding also reduces the opponents accuracy and gives -20 deflection. Flanking also gives -10 deflection.

I did some math, and basically for the first 15 points accuracy over the enemies deflection you increase your damage output by more than 10% per 5 points.
After that (where you start to convert graces into crits instead of misses), it's 4% per 5 accuracy.

A skill like dirty fighting (converting 10% of hits to crits, which is 10% of 50% = 5%), is only doing around 2,7% which is nothing.

My rogue is using Sabres by the way as they come with increased base damage.
I already decrease the enemies armor reduction by the "Vulnerable attack" talent.
Sabres have the big advantage that they have increased base damage.
And as the damage calculation is working like "Basedamage * (1+Modificators)" , increasing the base damage means that this additional damage is also multiplied by all the modificators (like Sneak attack, Crit, weapon quality…).

Since I'm ranged, using guns, the spells simply take too long to cast - and you have to micromanage a lot to time your attacks to get the most out of the status effects.

I don't have a Cipher in my party, though. Maybe the flanking spell would help.

Problem is that spells are subject to recovery AND cast times - which is just too restrictive unless you go nuts with timing.

I'm playing on Hard, and my Rogue is - by far - the most damaging class even without the sneak attacks. So, it hasn't been necessary.

I've tried the hobbling spell with my Druid, but it doesn't seem to affect enemies consistently - or for long enough. So, I gave that up.

I think they should have made it just like NWN - where melee combat was enough for sneak attacks. The status effects are nice enough by themselves.

There's a lot of little things that get in the way of a good combat flow, for my tastes.

Question:

If my fighter engages an enemy - and I use ranged attacks from behind that enemy, does that qualify as flanking?

Because, if so, it might be a better way of getting those sneak procs.

I think the implementation of the Rogue is much better than it was in Dragon Age 1, where the Rogue was the weakest class if I remember right, and due to the variety of spells it's also quite easy to apply the circumstances in sneak attacks in POE. I don't remember it very well in NWN2 though, just that I did not like the combat there at all. And it's worlds better than the rogue in Divinity: OS, where it was just pain in the ass to find the 5° (or so) range where you actually were allowed to do backstabs.

You also have to take the engagement system into consideration. Once the Rogue is engaged by an opponent he will be unable to move. Which restricts micromanegement a bit.

Regarding the ranged Attack Question:
No, it is not flanking. Flanking is a debuff applied to an enemy, which reduces his deflection to -10 for everyone attacking him.
In order to give the opponent this debuff, you need to engage this opponent with 2 or more characters. One of those has to stand roughly behind this opponent.

Once the opponent has this debuff, it applies to all attacks (also to the ranged guy).

But characters with ranged weapons cannot engage other characters within the engagement system of the game.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
I disagree. I think the implementation of the Rogue is much better than it was in Dragon Age 1, where the Rogue was the weakest class if I remember right, and due to the variety of spells it's also quite easy to apply the circumstances in sneak attacks in POE. I don't remember it very well in NWN2 though, just that I did not like the combat there at all. And it's worlds better than the rogue in Divinity: OS, where it was just pain in the ass to find the 5° (or so) range where you actually were allowed to do backstabs.

You also have to take the engagement system into consideration. Once the Rogue is engaged by an opponent he will be unable to move. Which restricts micromanegement a bit.

Regarding the ranged Attack Question:
No, it is not flanking. Flanking is a debuff applied to an enemy, which reduces his reflection to -10 for everyone attacking him.
In order to give the opponent this debuff, you need to engage this opponent with 2 or more characters. One of those has to stand roughly behind this opponent.

Once the opponent has this debuff, it applies to all attacks (also to the ranged guy).

But characters with ranged weapons cannot engage other characters within the engagement system of the game.

Ok, that's unfortunate.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the effects being easy to apply in a consistent manner, without them running out before I get more than a shot or two off. Usually, my caster takes too long to position himself/herself and then waiting for the spell to go off. By the time I get my Rogue reloaded and ready to fire again - enemies are either already dead, or the effect has run out. While I'm sure it's possible with a high level of micromanagment, it's simply not necessary - even on Hard.

Since the "tough" enemies are often immune to these effects, I don't get enough benefit from the high single target damage the Rogue has - meaning it's kind of a waste. I could just have made a Ranger instead. The one saving grace is the Rogue abilities, which are useful - except for the weird Backstab mechanic, that's totally reliant on close range and being invisible.

It's as if the Rogue just wasn't designed for ranged combat, which it should have been - since the game gives him that option.

I'm sure it's great for melee Rogues, though.

I loved Divinity: OS combat - but I agree the melee backstab was a pain to execute because of the UI issue.

As for Dragon Age, the Rogue was extremely powerful in melee - if you built him correctly. In the vanilla version, that meant focusing on strength and swords.

That said, I don't think Dragon Age was a great game for combat. It was OK - but most fights felt too similar.

In DAO at least the rouge was pretty much unstoppable if built right.

Dual wielding daggers ( with runes),the momentum and lethality talents alone could be devastating.

Throw in weapon coatings (that stack), stealth and the ability to easily position for flanking bonus and the DPS was unreal. Honestly a well built rouge towards the end of the game almost felt like a cheat.

Anyway, does the combat log tell you when your flanking?, I haven't seen it if it does.

Originally Posted by sakichop
In DAO at least the rouge was pretty much unstoppable if built right.

Dual wielding daggers ( with runes),the momentum and lethality talents alone could be devastating.

Throw in weapon coatings (that stack), stealth and the ability to easily position for flanking bonus and the DPS was unreal. Honestly a well built rouge towards the end of the game almost felt like a cheat.

Anyway, does the combat log tell you when your flanking?, I haven't seen it if it does.

The status windows shows it, but it hasn't been consistent. I read somewhere that it takes 3 people - but apparently it takes 2 with one of them engaging from behind. That's simply not practical in a lot of the fights, in my opinion.

The Rogue should actually be a better ranged character than the Ranger. Just because he can apply everything from ranged. The hunter feels kinda meh, especially because you need to position your pet right. The pet made it quite painful to me to play the Ranger.

Besides of making it a little harder to flank enemies (but you can use spells for that as mentioned before) there is really no downside for the rogue being ranged.

In a game with RTwP mostly everything is relative up to a certain point.
As I mentioned in other threads: While in TB Combat you have to have Skill > Difficulty to solve a fight, in RTwP you have (Skill + Pause Frequency) > Difficulty to solve it.
Up to a degree, where you do not profit from additional pauses, which is probably around each 1/3 second. And this is only required if the difficulty is really hard, or you want to be really effective (which the game doesn't require).
I am playing on path of the damned difficulty. And with less pause it would be quite impossible to do some of the fights. I think the micro management is okish, but of course it would have been a much, much better gameflow if the system was turnbased.
The way I play 30-45 seconds of combat can turn into fights of 10-15 minutes real time.

@sakichop: I don't think so. It's also not really necessary as there is nothing to tell but "flanking on/off". Of course you will see the decreased Deflection in the actuall roll. And you will see the debuff on the opponent.

Btw, for a complete list of status effects and casts which can apply these, you can check the wiki:
http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Status_Effects