62 réponses à ce sujet

[MayCaesar]

I understand the reasoning, and this is actually why I don't like all these discrete systems, like system of levels. It doesn't make much sense from the logical point of view that a character jumps in power discretely, rather than gradually becoming stronger and stronger. I would prefer having floating point sliders which grow gradually with experience you get. But even so, in some games these jumps aren't very big, so a character may be just a bit stronger than another character of the same build. Like in Mass Effect 2: there are 30 levels, I believe, and the difference between, say, half the way (level 15) and all the way (level 30), if we ignore the differences in equipment, isn't too big. While in your example, where the player only is allowed to have levels from 1 to 20, the difference between, say, a Sorcerer of level 10 and level 20 is so big, the latter can basically go alone against 10 level 10 Sorcerers and still win.

 

In such a system, it is extremely hard to balance everything well without resorting to some kind of scaling. If you are going to get destroyed if you go somewhere at level 12, but at level 14 you will have an easy time there, then the module maker should either assure that you go there at level 13 (which can only be done by making the module extremely linear), or give up on tuning the difficulty of this part of the module. Of course, I am exaggerating, and the difference between these two levels isn't SO big - but it is still noticeable enough to be concerned.

[Tchos]

Indeed, a sudden jump between discrete power levels doesn't make sense from a realistic point of view, but it's a gameplay abstraction, and it's at least understandable as such. 

 

I think Oblivion works mostly with continuous power increase as you suggest, though, as skills steadily increase as you use them, and you gain the benefits of it immediately, without having to wait until you reach the next level.

 

However, they also included discrete levels, and level scaling was based around that, causing potential problems if you didn't focus your bonuses on level-up as everything got stronger all around you -- the result being leveling up making you weaker relative to the rest of the world.

 

I'd say that the large power difference between levels as levels increase in D&D is due to the arithmetic progression used to determine the required XP to advance.  It pretty much has to be!

[MayCaesar]

I totally agree that in context of D&D the power difference between levels is inevitable. And this I see as one of the limitations of the system (much as I like D&D computer games, I am not a vivid fan of the system itself to be used in video games). But we have digressed from the topic enough already.

[Tchos]

True, but you're the OP, so I think it's your call whether to let things wander.  You seemed satisfied with the answers to the original question, earlier, so you could just as well let things digress.

[MagicalMaster]

However, I completely disagree with what you say, can't see where you're coming from, and really can't take anything away from your assessment of the DA:O combat.

 

Given that *most* of the things I said were facts and not opinions, I am *rather* curious how you managed to disagree with facts.  I'm counting a minimum of eight concrete facts that have nothing to do with personal experience in that list.  So kindly explain your reasoning here.

 

You say it wasn't difficult, but you also say Alistair "got wrecked by just about everything" despite constant healing.  That's not my experience at all.  I use Alistair as my tank in heavy armour and a sword and shield.  He almost never dies with Wynne's effective heals and an occasional poultice.  No need for Force Field.  And this is all in Nightmare mode, as I said earlier, so I don't know why you keep implying it's only fun in Normal or lower.

 

Whether Alistair can effectively tank has nothing to do with difficulty.  To paint an extreme case, imagine that every enemy had 1 HP and did 1000 damage per hit.  Would having Alistair "tank" make any sense?  No, because the goal with such a game is to never get hit in the first place.  That doesn't mean said game is difficult, though, it could in fact be very easy.

 

Later in the campaign Alistair was generally able to tank, yes, but I'm referring to more like the first half of the game.  I had Alistair die quite a few times even with 2 mages pumping Heal into him, Group Heal when possible, and Regeneration ticking.  Just spiked from 100% to dead faster than the Heal cooldown.  Again, with the best armor that seemed available at the time and focusing on the defensive talents.

 

This person doesn't expect or want that.  That stinks of level scaling, and I hate level scaling.  I want progression, in that as I rise in power, I feel the effects of that power by common combat being easier, and only notable battles (named NPCs or bosses) presenting a real challenge.

 

I never once mentioned or even implied level scaling.

 

Hell, NWN's OC, SoU, and HotU had a consistent challenge without level scaling (note: I didn't say they were *hard*, I said they had a consistent challenge).  So did Aielund and Swordflight.  You go from fighting rats and goblins to trolls and giants to dragons and liches.

 

But nevertheless, regarding the armor notion, I actually think that DAO had a very good separation between difficulties. 33% more damage the enemies deal means that your build should be very well optimized, so the difference between the damage Alistair takes is as small as possible.

 

My build was pretty well optimized, and you're missing my point here.  Bioware said "Enemies on Nightmare do 50% more damage" (or some similar number, don't quote me on it).  Your mage with almost 0 armor takes like 60% more damage.  Your rogue with mild armor takes like 100% more damage.  Your tank in heavy armor takes 300% more damage.  This goes back to how armor was a flat reduction.  Ironically, this means your more vulnerable characters are impacted *less* by enemies doing more damage.

 

You'll note that in DA2 they switched to a percentage system (which *still* keeps the whole "your build should be very well optimized, so the difference between the damage Alistair takes is as small as possible" thing going) and in DA:I they have armor provide more protection on higher difficulties (so on normal the mob hits for 100 and you have 60 armor while on Nightmare the mob hits for 200 and you have 120 armor -- meaning you still need to optimize your build and improve your armor because you still take more damage but the damage increase is consistent for everyone).  Hint: they didn't switch systems from DA:O because they thought DA:O worked out well.

 

In this regard, I dislike NWN, where the tank takes all the damage, and if the tank falls, and you don't have other tanks in your group, then you are toast. I am playing Aielund Saga, act II currently, with a Sorcerer, and as soon as the tank dies or some enemies run past the tank to my Sorcerer, I might as well reload right away, since I die to 3-4 hits. In DAO, non-tank characters actually can take some beating.

 

Might I suggest getting more than 8 Constitution?  Mages in NWN are far tankier than mages in DA:O (unless Arcane Warrior) -- much easier to solo as a NWN mage (*without* a summon) than a DA:O mage.  Part of that is the defensive spells, to be sure, but you should not be dying in 3-4 hits regardless.

 

I'll even post a video of me soloing some stuff in Aielund Act II if you want as a Sorcerer -- plan would be to start at level 8 with the stuff provided (so I'd actually be worse off than if I did Act I properly and got more experience/gold/items).  Let me know which enemies are generally concerning you (not going to go to the Isle of the Dead at level 8, of course, I'd play through the Act and hit the designated zone when appropriate).

 

Also, regarding the difficulty curve, I believe both NWN and DAO are seriously flawed. In NWN, as has already been told, Very Difficult simply leads to early fight being much tougher, while later fight are almost the same. In DAO, Very Difficult makes fights against large groups of enemies incomparably harder, while fights against small groups or bosses with little support are almost the same. The first battle in Lothering is often used as an example

 

I don't consider Very Difficult to be relevant for the reasons already given by many people including me.  Hell, from my perspective NWN only has *one* difficulty (Hardcore Rules) unless the module specifically allows for more (see Sanctum of the Archmage as an example of a module with built in difficulty modifiers).  Maybe it's just my perspective but in most cases (except for certain AoE spells as a caster) I see very little difference between Normal and Hardcore in the official campaigns, at least.  Certainly nothing compared to the differences between "Easy/Normal/Hard" in most games.

 

And yes, the example you used is an excellent example of the problems with DA:O's system.  If Nightmare vs Hard means every enemy hits 50% harder and has 50% more health (meaning you need more optimized builds), fine, do it, let's go.  But it's not -- sometimes it makes no difference and sometimes you take twelve times the damage.

 

Actually, this is an interesting question. Later combat being easier does give the feeling of progression - but to me personally it also creates a feeling of waste, in that I became stronger and, as such, I should be fighting stronger enemies than before, not killing the same enemies easier. The best feeling of progression, I believe, a person gets when they kill something they couldn't even touch before. Like, again, in Dragon Age: Origins: if you go after Flemeth at level 10 on Nightmare, you will be wiped out faster than you can say "whoa, a dragon!" - but if you then return at level 18, it will be a completely different story.

 

Agreed on the "I should be fighting stronger enemies" -- which is exactly what NWN modules tend to do!

 

For the record, I'm pretty sure I went after Flemeth at level 10 (or maybe even sooner) -- only did Redcliffe and Circle first.  Given you end up at level 20ish at the end of the campaign I'm guessing I was 10ish or less.  Also, I killed Flemeth at that point after a few tries.  That was also an example of Alistair getting wrecked through two mages spamming heals on him so I just said "Screw it, this is stupid, Force Field time."  It never occurred to me that perhaps I wasn't meant to do the quest yet as *every other quest* could be done as soon as it was available.

 

So if that was the developer's intention (that specific quest was meant to be higher level unlike every other quest) I'd say they failed at communicating it.

 

To my taste though, the level gap in Neverwinter Nights is too big. For example, in Mass Effect 3 Shepard of level 25 would perform just a little bit better than Shepard of level 20. In Neverwinter Nights, however, a level 25 Fighter will simply destroy a level 20 Fighter, the latter having no chance whatsoever. In a level 23 zone of original campaigns difficulty, the former will do quite well, while the latter will keep dying all over.

 

How exactly are you coming to this conclusion?  For a typical fighter build the difference between a 25 Fighter and 20 Fighter is going to be 65 HP, 6 AB, 2 AC, and 1 damage.  That's significant, sure, but gear is going to matter far more.  Even just a few items being better on the 20 Fighter would be enough to tilt the battle in their favor (or even like 1-2 extra Heal potions).  Compared to ME3, levels matter a lot less in NWN except for spellcasters (and then only prior to level 9 spells).

 

Hell, if we're going by the original campaign's difficulty I could beat a level 23 zone with like a level 10-15 Fighter, frankly, with the right gear.

 

True, I might not have chosen the best example. But if we compare, say, level 15 Fighter to level 12 Fighter, the picture will be similar: the latter will be little more than a punching bag. In many other games the difference between levels is not as drastic as in D&D.

 

Difference there is 39 HP and 3 AB, realistically speaking.  Very, very easy for gear (or a potion or two) to outweigh.  This is actually something that people usually *complain* about -- that gear matters so much more than levels for non-spellcasters in D&D.

[Tchos]

Given that *most* of the things I said were facts and not opinions, I am *rather* curious how you managed to disagree with facts.  I'm counting a minimum of eight concrete facts that have nothing to do with personal experience in that list.  So kindly explain your reasoning here.

 

It's not hard to understand.  I disagree with your assessment that the combat is not fun.  I found it fun.  It doesn't matter how much you analyse it or break it down or point out this or that thing.  I enjoyed it, in Nightmare mode, with non-optimised builds/equipment.  No headaches.

[MayCaesar]

True, but you're the OP, so I think it's your call whether to let things wander.  You seemed satisfied with the answers to the original question, earlier, so you could just as well let things digress.

 

Sure, I don't mind at all. I just have arrived recently on these forums and don't know its policies on digressing from original topic.

 

 

Might I suggest getting more than 8 Constitution?  Mages in NWN are far tankier than mages in DA:O (unless Arcane Warrior) -- much easier to solo as a NWN mage (*without* a summon) than a DA:O mage.  Part of that is the defensive spells, to be sure, but you should not be dying in 3-4 hits regardless.

 

I'll even post a video of me soloing some stuff in Aielund Act II if you want as a Sorcerer -- plan would be to start at level 8 with the stuff provided (so I'd actually be worse off than if I did Act I properly and got more experience/gold/items).  Let me know which enemies are generally concerning you (not going to go to the Isle of the Dead at level 8, of course, I'd play through the Act and hit the designated zone when appropriate).

 

Well, with all the items equipped, I hate 20 Constitution currently, if I am not mistaken. I am level 18 and have roughly 180 HP. However, my AC is very low, and essentially I take damage from any melee or ranged attack directed at me. 3-4 hits was an exaggeration, of course, it is more like 3-4 turns with one melee enemy working on me - but it still feels really bad, seeing as my tanking Fighter can take on 10 melee enemies at the same time with Stoneskin with barely losing any HP. In DAO the difference wasn't THAT big, and one-two skeletons closing Morrigan didn't mean that Morrigan had to run immediately or die.

 

I don't think I expressed myself clearly before. I do not have a really hard time in Aielund; in fact, I'd say I am doing very well, especially recently, once I acquired level 8-9 spells. I just dislike how fast non-tanking characters can die if the player isn't very careful. There was an encounter in the crypt on the Isle of the Dead with roughly 8 powerful shades. So, I saved before it, and, even as I encountered them, they all went for my Sorcerer (since she was closer to them than the rest of the party). A series of reloads followed, since every time, at least, 2 shades followed my Sorcerer no matter what I did and, once they were close, they destroyed me in a few seconds (I didn't have any charges on Stoneskin left).

 

In DAO, a powerful party felt like a powerful party, able to get through just about anything. In NWN, it is more of a giant glass cannon feeling: you are very strong, but even a weak wolf sneaking up on you can harm you in a couple of bites significantly. This is also what I hated about Witcher 2 and Witcher 3: on the hardest difficulties, dying to 3 hits of a random Drowner just because you had to sneeze and were distracted for a couple of seconds is not how I see a great balance.

 

In Neverwinter Nights 2 first two official campaigns, at least, fallen characters came back to life after the fight was over. In Neverwinter Nights 1, if your main character is dead, it is over, and if one of your companions is dead and you don't have a Cleric in the party, it is over too, unless you want to spend a few minutes going to a temple (if it is implemented), have a Resurrection Rod or just don't care about that character and prefer them dead anyway.

 

How exactly are you coming to this conclusion?  For a typical fighter build the difference between a 25 Fighter and 20 Fighter is going to be 65 HP, 6 AB, 2 AC, and 1 damage.  That's significant, sure, but gear is going to matter far more.  Even just a few items being better on the 20 Fighter would be enough to tilt the battle in their favor (or even like 1-2 extra Heal potions).  Compared to ME3, levels matter a lot less in NWN except for spellcasters (and then only prior to level 9 spells).

 

I was talking based on the assumption of "all other things equal". Anyway, I find your statements on ME and DAO series discrepancy between levels significantly differing from mine, and I don't really want debating it, since we will end up disagreeing in any case. So, let's just agree to disagree.

 

Difference there is 39 HP and 3 AB, realistically speaking.  Very, very easy for gear (or a potion or two) to outweigh.  This is actually something that people usually *complain* about -- that gear matters so much more than levels for non-spellcasters in D&D.

 

Actually, while this is true, I like the strong gear dependence. It is realistic (a guy using a machine gun the first time in his life will perform significantly better than a samurai with a katana after 30 years of harsh training), it brings some diversity (if you play a module the first time, you never know what you are going to get off this corpse, while you can estimate how far you are from leveling up), it gives modders more options on balancing their modules (it is much easier to design new items than new spells/abilities/leveling systems). While dependence on the levels is questionable in these aspects, especially for "threshold" levels (at level X, you are quite weak, but at level X+1 you get a powerful ability which transforms you completely - in KotoR, for example, each level allowing you to upgrade Force Speed once more, improved your DPS significantly).

[MagicalMaster]

It's not hard to understand.  I disagree with your assessment that the combat is not fun.  I found it fun.  It doesn't matter how much you analyse it or break it down or point out this or that thing.  I enjoyed it, in Nightmare mode, with non-optimised builds/equipment.  No headaches.

 

Just to make sure we're on the same page...

 

1, you acknowledge that the flat reduction of armor combined with the way that the difficulty scaling worked means the amount of incoming damage on the tank could be wildly out of proportion to the actual damage increase of Nightmare.  So if Nightmare enemies did, say, 50% more than Normal in an absolute sense...sometimes Nightmare enemies might do 0% more damage to the tank compared to Normal, sometimes Nightmare enemies might do 50% more damage to the tank compared to Normal, and sometimes Nightmare enemies might do 1100% more damage to the tank compared to Normal.

 

2, you acknowledge that there was no in-game method of respeccing in DA:O if you tried one playstyle that the game encouraged and found that it wound up not working very well.

 

3, you acknowledge that trying to use Dex to avoid hits in lighter armor could be negated by many enemies using Perfect Striking.

 

4. you acknowledge that you could chain Force Field on a tank with only two mages and the enemies would keep attacking that tank and thus remove a need for healing (or anything but that tank hitting Taunt between Force Fields, really).

 

5. you acknowledge that Mana Clash would one-shot any non-boss mage and Crushing Prison had a similar effect

 

6, you acknowledge that either of those long cooldown "instant kill" spells being randomly resisted could drastically change the difficulty of a battle

 

7. you acknowledge that, relative to other spells in the game, Blood Wound was incredibly powerful in terms of preferable damage type, high damage, short casting time, paralysis effect, and no friendly fire.

 

8. you acknowledge that bows in Origin were very weak compared to other weapon types

 

9. you acknowledge that bows in Awakening were incredibly powerful compared to other weapon types

 

10, you acknowledge that several of the Warrior damaging offensive abilities actually resulted in a loss of DPS by using them

 

And despite all that (and more I could go into), you disagree with the opinion that Origins combat was terrible, stupid, and/or headache inducing.

 

Well, with all the items equipped, I hate 20 Constitution currently, if I am not mistaken. I am level 18 and have roughly 180 HP. However, my AC is very low, and essentially I take damage from any melee or ranged attack directed at me. 3-4 hits was an exaggeration, of course, it is more like 3-4 turns with one melee enemy working on me - but it still feels really bad, seeing as my tanking Fighter can take on 10 melee enemies at the same time with Stoneskin with barely losing any HP. In DAO the difference wasn't THAT big, and one-two skeletons closing Morrigan didn't mean that Morrigan had to run immediately or die.

 

If you had 8 Constitution and no protective spells/gear it wouldn't really be an exaggeration...and I've seen people try to play mages like that in NWN and then be mad about it.  I'm also assuming you mean "3-4 rounds" rather than "3-4 turns" as the latter is 3-4 minutes/30-40 rounds.

 

And yes -- the most effective way to play a standard mage is to ignore AC as you won't be able to get it high enough to really matter versus relevant enemies (and anything weak won't get past your defensive buffs/gear or sometimes even AC).  On the flip side, that's more gear slots free to boost damage resistance/damage immunity/damage reduction/raw stats/saves/etc.  Plus you have Ghostly Visage initially, then Stoneskin, then at higher levels things like Improved Invisibility (which is even more powerful in EMS (and brokenly so, in my opinion)) and Premonition (again, buffed by EMS).  Shadow Shield is also extremely effective versus weaker enemies (10 reduction versus enemieswith +2 or worse weapons).  Then you also have Elemental Shield/Mestil's Acid Sheath to reflect horrendous amounts of damage (still horrendous despite EMS nerfing both) and, of course, your actual offensive spells.

 

I mean, 3-4 rounds is 18-24 seconds of sitting there and having those enemies hit you while you do nothing.  That's a very long time -- I actually do think that Morrigan sitting there and being attacked by two melee enemies for 20ish seconds would kill her.  I'd also question how that enemy is still alive for that long against your NWN mage unless you're out of spells or saving them for actual tough enemies (which means worst case pop a few Cure Serious Wounds/Cure Critical Wounds potions, they're cheap, and just eat the damage).

 

And different roles for different classes.  Yes, your tank can take on 10 melee enemies at once and slowly chew through them one by one -- even killing one enemy every 6 seconds would take a full minute to win and most likely it would take 12+ seconds per enemy.  Your mage could take on those same 10 melee enemies and kill all of them in 3-6 seconds.  Or if you wanted to conserve spells then let them kill themselves on Elemental Shield/Acid Sheath in not much longer time (but might need to drink a potion or two if you're avoiding using temporary defensive spells like Stoneskin).

 

I don't think I expressed myself clearly before. I do not have a really hard time in Aielund; in fact, I'd say I am doing very well, especially recently, once I acquired level 8-9 spells. I just dislike how fast non-tanking characters can die if the player isn't very careful. There was an encounter in the crypt on the Isle of the Dead with roughly 8 powerful shades. So, I saved before it, and, even as I encountered them, they all went for my Sorcerer (since she was closer to them than the rest of the party). A series of reloads followed, since every time, at least, 2 shades followed my Sorcerer no matter what I did and, once they were close, they destroyed me in a few seconds (I didn't have any charges on Stoneskin left).

 

Sounds like an excellent opportunity to spend a few spells and annihilate the entire group, frankly, or use damage shields (though if it's the shades I'm thinking of they'd be resistant to at least Elemental Shield as I recall)...or use Improved Invisibility to hide...or retreat and find a chokepoint...or just kite the shades until your other party members cleaned up the other ones.

 

And yes, I know Improved Invisibility is also a level 4 spell like Stoneskin...but what about an Extended or Silenced version of either?  Or if you were out of all level 4 and 5 spells (and also presumably your better ones as well)...then that's probably a sign you should be resting.  D&D (and thus NWN) is balanced around resting.  Part of the gameplay is managing your spells between rests as a caster -- the game isn't balanced around a sorcerer or wizard with no spells available and it's usually not balanced around a sorcerer or wizard with all spells available either.

 

In this situation a D&D mage has a large advantage over a DA mage as they have a lot more options available...but they also actually need to have spells available for those options to be available.  However, it also seems that part of your concern is the lack of aggro management and party control -- in theory a DA warrior could taunt the shades away from the mage and/or physically plant himself as interference...while the AI companions in Aielund cannot taunt in the same manner (because it doesn't exist in D&D) and you cannot control them for precise party tactics.  But that's not a D&D mage to DA mage comparison issue.

 

In NWN, it is more of a giant glass cannon feeling: you are very strong, but even a weak wolf sneaking up on you can harm you in a couple of bites significantly.

 

and if one of your companions is dead and you don't have a Cleric in the party, it is over too, unless you want to spend a few minutes going to a temple (if it is implemented), have a Resurrection Rod or just don't care about that character and prefer them dead anyway.

 

That weak wolf would struggle to hit your mage even with the mage's low AC, and/or would not penetrate the damage reduction/resistance from gear/spells, and/or would be significantly reduced by damage immunity.  But even if it managed to make it through those defensive measures, your higher level mage also has a lot more relative HP.

 

A level 1 mage in NWN probably has 6 HP.  A level 5 mage has 30 HP.  A level 10 mage has 60 HP.  A level 20 mage has 120 HP.  And that's not counting Toughness, Constitution from gear, or Constitution from spells -- you yourself mentioned how your mage was up to 10 HP per level (and thus would have 200 HP at level 20).

 

In comparison, a level 1 mage in DA has 85 HP, a level 5 mage has 101 HP, a level 10 mage has 121 HP, and a level 20 mage has 161 HP.  Even if you threw in another 10 constitution points from gear because why not, that's only 211 HP.

 

Thus, in NWN, a wolf designed to do 20% of a level 5 mage's health would do 6 damage...which is only 3% of a level 20 mage's health.  But in DA that same wolf would do 17 damage to a level 5 mage...which is about 8% of the level 20 mage's health.  So weaker enemies already hit for proportionally less in NWN...and NWN has a lot more defensive options than DA for mages.

 

Regarding the death stuff: do you not carry around some Raise Dead or Resurrection scrolls?  They're typically accessible in most modules that don't have a custom death system set up.  Hell, in most NWN modules you could easily chain Ressurect someone and keep bringing them back at full HP.

 

Actually, while this is true, I like the strong gear dependence. It is realistic (a guy using a machine gun the first time in his life will perform significantly better than a samurai with a katana after 30 years of harsh training), it brings some diversity (if you play a module the first time, you never know what you are going to get off this corpse, while you can estimate how far you are from leveling up), it gives modders more options on balancing their modules (it is much easier to design new items than new spells/abilities/leveling systems). While dependence on the levels is questionable in these aspects, especially for "threshold" levels (at level X, you are quite weak, but at level X+1 you get a powerful ability which transforms you completely - in KotoR, for example, each level allowing you to upgrade Force Speed once more, improved your DPS significantly).

 

It's not consistent in D&D/NWN, though.  Spellcasters are far, far more dependent on levels while melee characters barely need them.  And worse yet spellcasters tend to be all about those threshold levels -- things like, say, unlocking level 9 spells.

 

Also, I don't think going from a +3 to a +4 sword or something is equivalent to going from a katana to a machine gun.  The technological gap is a *bit* smaller.

[Tchos]

1, you acknowledge that...

2, you acknowledge that...

3, you acknowledge that...

4. you acknowledge that...

5. you acknowledge that...

6, you acknowledge that...

7. you acknowledge that...

8. you acknowledge that...

9. you acknowledge that...

10, you acknowledge that...

And despite all that (and more I could go into), you disagree with the opinion that Origins combat was terrible, stupid, and/or headache inducing.

 

   What I acknowledge is that talking about DA:O with you is terrible, stupid, and/or headache inducing, when you keep trying to beat me down into changing my subjective opinion about how fun the combat is.  It's safe to say that your examples either weren't present or noticeable in my playthroughs, or they didn't bother me.  (Certainly more than I can say about this discussion.)

[MayCaesar]

I don't want to debate the semantics, since it is apparent that we have a very different perception of combat in both DAO and NWN games. I'll just say what happens in my mind every time my mage gets attacked in these games.

1. A few melee enemies go after my mage in DAO: "OK, let's see what our options are. I think I will just cast Sleep on them, so they do not disturb me in the following 10-20 seconds, and in the meantime I will keep DPS'ing the boss."

2. A few melee enemies go after my Wizard/Sorcerer in NWN1: "Are they weak enough for me to kill them with 2 spells? No? Ruuuuuuun, run away as fast as you can!!!"

It is not as bad in NWN2 since you can individually control companions there, so if you are playing a Sorcerer and things get hot, you can always send your tank to help you take off some pressure. But in NWN1 the companion management is very clunkly (maybe it is better with some mods, but I am talking about the official game with no mods here), you cannot control your tank nearly well enough to make him the target of most enemies. There is also this annoying aspect that your companions are always behind you, so the enemies usually notice you first and go after you. It is 10 times as bad if enemies also have some ranged attacks, like Giants in the 3rd act of Aielund that throw stones at you.

 

Yes, I am aware that there are many spells, such as giving invisibility and damage soak - but using them every time is a pain. This is another thing I dislike about D&D: on higher levels, the combat essentially becomes putting various buffs on like clothes and then trying to finish the enemy off before the buffs are depleted. I remember a Lich boss in Neverwinter Nights 2 - holy cow, I spent nearly 3 minutes applying various buffs before going in.

DAO had much better system of buffs, I think, with mana/stamina allocation for them, so you didn't have to apply them manually every time you see a few Genlocks.

 

To put in bluntly, I don't play Neverwinter Nights 1/2 for their combat. I've never been a fan of D&D combat in video games (although in tabletop games, I think, it is awesome - I've never played them myself, but I see the attraction), and NWN1, where you control the sole PC, is pretty much the pinnacle of what I dislike about this combat. I play NWN games because of storytelling, the amount of custom content and the ability to make such content myself. However, the combat is an essential part of these games, and, if I want to become good at modding, I should become good at, among other things, combat as well - hence why I created this thread in the first place.

[MagicalMaster]

I don't want to debate the semantics, since it is apparent that we have a very different perception of combat in both DAO and NWN games. I'll just say what happens in my mind every time my mage gets attacked in these games.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure what perception has to do with this.  I went and recorded this for you:

 

 

First clip: got hit initially at 0:11, died at 0:19.  8 seconds to die to three random mooks.

 

Second clip: got hit initially at 0:27, died at 0:36.  9 seconds to die to three random mooks.

 

Past the first few levels, I can't remember a point where three random weak mobs would kill me in under 2 rounds as a mage in NWN.  Do you?

 

1. A few melee enemies go after my mage in DAO: "OK, let's see what our options are. I think I will just cast Sleep on them, so they do not disturb me in the following 10-20 seconds, and in the meantime I will keep DPS'ing the boss."

2. A few melee enemies go after my Wizard/Sorcerer in NWN1: "Are they weak enough for me to kill them with 2 spells? No? Ruuuuuuun, run away as fast as you can!!!"

 

What's your rationale for being willing to spend a spell or two on the mobs in DA:O not but NWN?  Is that solely because of the spells per day system of NWN versus cooldowns of DA:O?  What if you were out of mana in DA:O, isn't that more similar to being out of spells in NWN?

 

It is not as bad in NWN2 since you can individually control companions there, so if you are playing a Sorcerer and things get hot, you can always send your tank to help you take off some pressure. But in NWN1 the companion management is very clunkly (maybe it is better with some mods, but I am talking about the official game with no mods here)

 

...if we're talking the official campaigns, how is this an issue?  I've easily soloed all of the official campaigns as a Sorcerer.  I mean, yes, ideally you wouldn't be targeted as much...but does that really matter with how easy official NWN is?

 

Or why not use Invisibility on yourself (or use an invisibility potion or wand) so that enemies don't even see you and instead go after the tank?  Would work perfectly in that giant example of yours.

 

Yes, I am aware that there are many spells, such as giving invisibility and damage soak - but using them every time is a pain. This is another thing I dislike about D&D: on higher levels, the combat essentially becomes putting various buffs on like clothes and then trying to finish the enemy off before the buffs are depleted. I remember a Lich boss in Neverwinter Nights 2 - holy cow, I spent nearly 3 minutes applying various buffs before going in.

 

What do you mean by "every time?"  As in every time you rest?  In the official campaigns or similar modules it's usually just Improved Invis on myself and Shadow Shield (Ghostly Visage at lower levels instead) myself.  Maybe (Lesser) Mind Blank or Protection from Alignment if concerned about mind spells and no mind spell immunity.  Then sometimes things like Mestil's Acid Sheath or Elemental Shield for short term fights.

 

I can't speak for NWN2 as I've never played it but I'm not sure how a solo sorcerer is going to spend that much time buffing in NWN.

 

To put in bluntly, I don't play Neverwinter Nights 1/2 for their combat. I've never been a fan of D&D combat in video games (although in tabletop games, I think, it is awesome - I've never played them myself, but I see the attraction), and NWN1, where you control the sole PC, is pretty much the pinnacle of what I dislike about this combat. I play NWN games because of storytelling, the amount of custom content and the ability to make such content myself. However, the combat is an essential part of these games, and, if I want to become good at modding, I should become good at, among other things, combat as well - hence why I created this thread in the first place.

 

*shrug* I don't play NWN for its combat either, but overall I think NWN had a better combat system than DA:O (though DA:O had more potential if Bioware hadn't screwed up the actual implementation of a lot of things -- see problems like "DPS" talents actually causing LESS DPS than auto-attacking).  But DA2 had a better combat system than either (even if the animations and enemies dropping in from the sky were ridiculous).

 

   What I acknowledge is that talking about DA:O with you is terrible, stupid, and/or headache inducing, when you keep trying to beat me down into changing my subjective opinion about how fun the combat is.  It's safe to say that your examples either weren't present or noticeable in my playthroughs, or they didn't bother me.  (Certainly more than I can say about this discussion.)

 

At this point I was more curious if you'd even be willing to admit that DA:O had flaws in the first point, even if you enjoyed the game in spite of said flaws.  It would have literally been impossible for many of those examples to NOT be present, so we'd have to go with "You weren't paying enough attention to notice" or "They didn't bother you for whatever reason."  Personally I'm suspecting rose-tinted nostalgia goggles and more easily remembering the latter half of the game where the combat became a joke as opposed to the first half which was idiotic at times (which is similar to the original Mass Effect as well, in all fairness).

[Tchos]

Personally I'm suspecting rose-tinted nostalgia goggles and more easily remembering the latter half of the game where the combat became a joke as opposed to the first half which was idiotic at times (which is similar to the original Mass Effect as well, in all fairness).

 

Yeah, go ahead and assume all you want.  You're going to, no matter what I say. 

 

I last played it 2 months ago.

 

And for chrissakes, when did 5 years become long enough to acquire "rose tinted nostalgia glasses" about something?  For the record, I wrote detailed impressions of my first playthrough when I did it at the time, so if you want to see whether my opinions have changed over time, read those.  (Hint: They didn't.)

[MagicalMaster]

Yeah, go ahead and assume all you want.  You're going to, no matter what I say.

 

I'll make you a deal.  Say something along the lines of "DA:O had some significant balance issues and broken gameplay systems...but I liked the combat overall in spite of the flaws present and thoroughly enjoyed the game as a whole" and I'll be more than content.  But right now you seem to be insisting the game had zero problems with its combat system (and Bioware didn't massively revamp the combat system for DA2 because they thought the DA:O combat system worked really well).

 

And for chrissakes, when did 5 years become long enough to acquire "rose tinted nostalgia glasses" about something?  For the record, I wrote detailed impressions of my first playthrough when I did it at the time, so if you want to see whether my opinions have changed over time, read those.  (Hint: They didn't.)

 

People have rose-tinted nostalgia classes about something less than a year later -- seen it happen for multiple WoW expansions, as an easy example.  During one expansion "WOW THIS SUCKS AND IS HORRIBLE."  Next expansion hits and a few months late "WOW THIS SUCKS AND IS HORRIBLE, THE LAST EXPANSION WAS SO AWESOME, HOW DID WE GO FROM THAT TO THIS?"

 

And in something like DA:O with an 80+ hour campaign, it's definitely easy to forget what the start was like.

 

I just went and hunted down some of your first impressions:

 

"I played on "normal" mode, which was said on the forums to be equal to the console version's "hard" mode."

 

"I only wonder because the battles are still pretty easy, even the "boss" battle that was shown in the game previews, so either it's still easing me into the combat mechanics and will increase in difficulty with time, or I just need to switch to "hard" mode. This is why I haven't yet installed patch 1.01: it makes both Easy and Normal modes easier, so I wanted to get a feel for how hard "normal" was before the patch. After having been playing for a while, I can say that I definitely don't want it easier than this. I'll try it out in Hard mode and see how it feels."

 

"I was not disappointed. You can get an unlimited supply of lyrium dust there, so I bought up 3 full stacks of 99, and went back to camp and stocked up on about 100 lesser and normal strength mana potions. And it's a bloody good thing I did, too, because as I said before, that dungeon was unimaginably massive, and I would have been seriously crippled in the many boss fights there if I didn't happen to have an ample supply of potions on me (as well as health poultices). In fact, I might have hated the dungeon if I weren't adequately prepared."

 

And...that seems to essentially be the end of your commentary, at least in terms of combat stuff.

 

You're playing (and *struggling*) in normal (and even before an apparent nerf to Normal in the early patches it was still significantly easier than Hard or Nightmare)...and in fact I'm not even sure it was really harder due to this tidbit in 1.02: "The spells Force Field, Crushing Prison, Cone of Cold, and Blizzard now have shorter durations and/or longer cooldowns. This ensures that combatants can no longer stun-lock each other by repeatedly casting the same spell."  Also, stuff from 1.03: "At higher levels, non-player characters now receive a bonus to armor penetration. This mitigates an unintentional imbalance with well-armored high-level characters, since armor penetration previously did not scale as aggressively as armor itself did.  Elite-rank enemies (lieutenants) can no longer be shattered. This preserves the intended tactical design of many combat encounters."

 

So apparently Force Field, Crushing Prison, and Cone of Cold (three of the best spells in the game) were even better initially and got nerfed before I played.  Then enemies did more damage to players with high armor and elite enemies were made less vulnerable.

 

As for me, I played on Nightmare on my first and only playthrough (though I also played every origin story on Nightmare too).  So any problems with the combat system hit me square in the head because I wasn't used to them.

[Tchos]

Say something along the lines of "DA:O had some significant balance issues and broken gameplay systems...but I liked the combat overall in spite of the flaws present and thoroughly enjoyed the game as a whole" and I'll be more than content.

 
And if I don't, you'll keep harassing me until I decide to lie?  It would be a lie for me to say "DA:O had some significant balance issues and broken gameplay systems", because I didn't feel any such balance trouble, and if there were any broken gameplay systems, I didn't experience them.
 

People have rose-tinted nostalgia classes about something less than a year later -- seen it happen for multiple WoW expansions, as an easy example.  During one expansion "WOW THIS SUCKS AND IS HORRIBLE."  Next expansion hits and a few months late "WOW THIS SUCKS AND IS HORRIBLE, THE LAST EXPANSION WAS SO AWESOME, HOW DID WE GO FROM THAT TO THIS?"

 
How do you know those are the same people saying both of those things, and not some people hating the expansion and others loving it?
 

You're playing (and *struggling*) in normal (and even before an apparent nerf to Normal in the early patches it was still significantly easier than Hard or Nightmare)...
As for me, I played on Nightmare on my first and only playthrough (though I also played every origin story on Nightmare too).  So any problems with the combat system hit me square in the head because I wasn't used to them.

 
Where do you get that I was "struggling"?  I repeatedly said that I was finding it far too easy playing on "Normal", which I did because this was my very first party-based RPG (which I also mentioned), and kept with it for a while because I thought it was easing me into the combat as an extended tutorial.  When I decided it had been long enough, I did as I said I would do, even though I didn't report it, and changed to Hard, and within the same period changed to Nightmare to see how that felt, too.  I stuck with Nightmare after that, including when I played through all of the alternate origins, which is starting from the beginning.  So I do know what Nightmare feels like at the beginning of the game, because I did it many times.

 

Being that this was my first party-based RPG, I also played through about half the game with the worst possible party spec and combination you can imagine, and yet I was still having a great time, as evidenced in my quote "I officially love Dragon Age" upon reaching that massive dungeon I was talking about in that quote.  I didn't even have a party healer until that time, nor understand how they were supposed to work, since I'd never played a healer before.

[MagicalMaster]

And if I don't, you'll keep harassing me until I decide to lie?

Might I remind you that you said:

 

"Yeah, go ahead and assume all you want.  You're going to, no matter what I say."

 

You're accusing me of either being a liar (because I won't believe you're telling the truth) or being an idiot (because I'm incapable of seeing the truth).  On the flip side, I've repeatedly said that I have no beef with your enjoyment of the combat...I was asking if you could recognize/acknowledge some problems with said combat.  You can like something despite thinking it has problems.

 

 It would be a lie for me to say "DA:O had some significant balance issues and broken gameplay systems", because I didn't feel any such balance trouble, and if there were any broken gameplay systems, I didn't experience them.

 

The idea of being able to make a tank invulnerable constantly and having enemies continue to attack that invulnerable tank while leaving you free to rain AoE on the whole crowd in a game where AoE hits friendlies doesn't strike you as unbalanced or broken?  Maybe you haven't abused that particular spell/tactic yet and thus haven't experienced it personally, but can you see how that's broken/unbalanced?

 

 How do you know those are the same people saying both of those things, and not some people hating the expansion and others loving it?

 

Because it was literally some of the same people on the forums.  The exact same people.  I'm not saying *everyone* went that route, but I did in fact see several people do so.

 

 Where do you get that I was "struggling"?  I repeatedly said that I was finding it far too easy playing on "Normal", which I did because this was my very first party-based RPG (which I also mentioned), and kept with it for a while because I thought it was easing me into the combat as an extended tutorial.

 

"And it's a bloody good thing I did, too, because as I said before, that dungeon was unimaginably massive, and I would have been seriously crippled in the many boss fights there if I didn't happen to have an ample supply of potions on me (as well as health poultices). In fact, I might have hated the dungeon if I weren't adequately prepared."

 

Right there.

[Tchos]

You're accusing me of either being a liar (because I won't believe you're telling the truth) or being an idiot (because I'm incapable of seeing the truth).

 
A liar is someone who won't believe someone else is telling the truth?  Regardless, I don't think I've accused you of anything.  You did in fact assume "nostalgia goggles", and refused to believe it could be anything else.
 
I'm just telling you that I won't make a claim that I don't believe to be true.

 

The idea of being able to make a tank invulnerable constantly and having enemies continue to attack that invulnerable tank while leaving you free to rain AoE on the whole crowd in a game where AoE hits friendlies doesn't strike you as unbalanced or broken?  Maybe you haven't abused that particular spell/tactic yet and thus haven't experienced it personally, but can you see how that's broken/unbalanced?

 
Whether someone chooses to seek and exploit game mechanics is no concern of mine.  I don't do it, because I would get no satisfaction from it, so I can't say from experience whether it is as you say.  Hypothetically, though, if a thing exists which is broken, then I agree that thing is broken.

 

I'm not concerned or interested in "balance" in these games, though.  This is a team-based game like D&D, and D&D is certainly not balanced.
 

I'm not saying *everyone* went that route, but I did in fact see several people do so.

 
Good that you're not saying that.  I'll thank you not to assume I would go that route.
 

"And it's a bloody good thing I did, too, because as I said before, that dungeon was unimaginably massive, and I would have been seriously crippled in the many boss fights there if I didn't happen to have an ample supply of potions on me (as well as health poultices). In fact, I might have hated the dungeon if I weren't adequately prepared."
Right there.

 
That does not say I was struggling.  You're misinterpreting.  It says that I thought it would have been hard if I didn't have consumables, because up until that point I had never used a healer and did all my healing with poultices.  Once I understood how Wynne's role was supposed to be played, who I acquired in that dungeon but didn't really figure out how to use until later, I no longer needed poultices.  And as it says elsewhere in that post, I didn't have a hard time, and loved the dungeon.  I could take a character in there at the earliest opportunity without an ample supply now that I have that understanding, and I would not be crippled as I had expected.

[MayCaesar]

Honestly, I'm not sure what perception has to do with this.  I went and recorded this for you:

 

 

First clip: got hit initially at 0:11, died at 0:19.  8 seconds to die to three random mooks.

 

Second clip: got hit initially at 0:27, died at 0:36.  9 seconds to die to three random mooks.

 

Past the first few levels, I can't remember a point where three random weak mobs would kill me in under 2 rounds as a mage in NWN.  Do you?

 

This is a bit unfair comparison, since:

1) Low levels of NWN and DAO have less discrepancy in terms of mage survivability than high levels, due to the additional standard attacks per round in NWN every few levels. I don't complain about survivability of Sorcerers/Wizards on first 7-8 levels, but rather past level 12 or so.

2) I wasn't talking about just staying there doing nothing. I can record similar video from the final boss battle in Aielund Saga act III, and if I just come close to 3 enemies and do nothing, I will probably die even faster. I was talking about casting disabling spells, for example (I specifically mentioned Mind Blast above). Maybe I am doing something wrong, but, aside from Invisibility, I don't see any viable option for a Sorcerer/Wizard from NWN to be able to stand in front of melee enemies any significant time.

 

In Dragon Age: Origins Alistair can withstand more beating than Morrigan, but he still will suffer a lot - the difference is, maybe, 3 times, but not more than that. In NWN yesterday, in the mentioned final boss battle, Robert (Fighter) stood in front of 4-5 strong melee enemies for over 3 minutes, and I only had to heal him with +10 kits a couple of times. In comparison, when such an enemy was in front of my Sorcerer (with Stoneskin on!), he would deal roughly 25 damage to the Sorcerer with each hit, that is 100 damage per round (maybe 125; I don't know what level they were), that is, even with 20 constitution, the Sorcerer would inevitably die in 3 rounds, unless she could kill the enemy in that time (she could, barely). So, what difference between Fighter and Sorcerer do we have here? I don't even want to count it, but it is well over 50 times.

 

 

What's your rationale for being willing to spend a spell or two on the mobs in DA:O not but NWN?  Is that solely because of the spells per day system of NWN versus cooldowns of DA:O?  What if you were out of mana in DA:O, isn't that more similar to being out of spells in NWN?

 

In DAO, mages can use mana potions, with the stronger ones restoring more than half mana. There is a certain cooldown between the usage, but on higher levels, when half of your mana is enough to cast 7-8 spells in a row, it is barely an issue.

Plus, mana regenerates on its own as well, and with some items and buffs this regeneration can be pretty significant.

 

In NWN, once you've run out of spells, you are toast. You can use scrolls, rods and such, of course, but relying on them never did me any good.

 

 

...if we're talking the official campaigns, how is this an issue?  I've easily soloed all of the official campaigns as a Sorcerer.  I mean, yes, ideally you wouldn't be targeted as much...but does that really matter with how easy official NWN is?

 

Or why not use Invisibility on yourself (or use an invisibility potion or wand) so that enemies don't even see you and instead go after the tank?  Would work perfectly in that giant example of yours.

 

Well, I can solo DAO, DA2 and, I think, DAI too with any class too. A lot of craziness is possible if one is willing to put in enough time in it (I even saw a naked weaponless run in Witcher 2 in Dark Mode - pure masochism, of course, but it is possible). But this is beside the point.

 

As for Invisibility... Well, yes, you can use it. But, like I said, using it every battle is daunting. Plus, to me personally it destroys the very purpose of DPS mage as I see it in RPGs: I prefer tanking heroes defending mages from harm, not mages defending themselves and fighting on their own. This is why I like NWN2 mages so much better: they don't have to resort to tricks like Invisibility to be able to survive, they can just rely on other characters defending them. It probably has something to do with KotoR having been my first Bioware game, and there it worked perfectly: melee characters protected ranged ones from harm.

 

I'd say ability to directly control companions in NWN would solve most of the issues I have with combat in this game. As of now, I prefer just playing NWN2. "Controlling" companions in NWN1 is very inconvenient and rage inducing.

 

 

I can't speak for NWN2 as I've never played it but I'm not sure how a solo sorcerer is going to spend that much time buffing in NWN.

 

Well, I had a Cleric, a Wizard/Red Wizard, an Arcane Archer with a few special campaign abilities, and someone else (not sure about the class) with a few buffs as well. It was very inconvenient to play: the group was very powerful, but preparation for battle would take very long.

[MagicalMaster]

 
A liar is someone who won't believe someone else is telling the truth?  Regardless, I don't think I've accused you of anything.  You did in fact assume "nostalgia goggles", and refused to believe it could be anything else.

 

I was rather tired and phrased it poorly.  You said

 

"Yeah, go ahead and assume all you want.  You're going to, no matter what I say."

 

So, according to you, there are two possibilities here:

 

1, I'm an idiot and can't see the truth, hence I'll keep assuming

2, I'm smart enough to see the truth...but I'll lie about that fact and keep claiming otherwise

 

If you can come up with a third alternative that isn't accusatory/insulting then I am all ears...but every possibility I've thought of so far boils down to me being stupid/blind/etc (choice 1) or knowing otherwise but lying about it (choice 2).  Remember, according to you I'm *always* going to be publicly assuming.

 

And I don't refuse to believe it could be anything else...but the other alternatives are less charitable to *you.*  Hence I was trying to avoid them.

 

 I'm just telling you that I won't make a claim that I don't believe to be true.

 

But you're perfectly content to disagree with a claim that you apparently have no real knowledge of?

 

"However, I completely disagree with what you say, can't see where you're coming from, and really can't take anything away from your assessment of the DA:O combat."

 

*You* asserted that my statement was wrong...when you're ignorant of the subject, apparently.  You're basically in the position of saying "If doctors announced a cure for cancer was found I'd be willing to say they were wrong because I don't personally believe it...but I wouldn't be willing to say they were right because I don't know whether they're right or wrong."

 

If you don't have enough knowledge or interest in something, you *withhold* judgment.

 

 Whether someone chooses to seek and exploit game mechanics is no concern of mine.  I don't do it, because I would get no satisfaction from it, so I can't say from experience whether it is as you say.  Hypothetically, though, if a thing exists which is broken, then I agree that thing is broken.

 

I'm not concerned or interested in "balance" in these games, though.  This is a team-based game like D&D, and D&D is certainly not balanced.

 

Exploit?  The spell freaking says "The caster erects a telekinetic barrier around a target, who becomes completely immune to damage for the duration of the spell but cannot move. Friendly fire possible."  It is perfectly natural to think "Uh-oh, tank (or, heck, any party member) is getting hit hard, let's make him immune to let him recover"...at which point you realize the mobs are programmed to *keep* attacking the immune target.  That's insanely obvious.  Which then directly leads to "Hey, the tank isn't doing much damage anyway -- why not Force Field him as much as possible?"

 

This isn't some complex hunt for obscure game mechanics here.  This is basic stuff right in front of your nose that the game hands to you with the very spell description.

 

And if you're not concerned or interested in balance, then why are you attempting to disagree with someone who clearly IS interested in balance?  Heck, your last sentence seems to indicate that you think it probably *isn't* balanced since it was based on another non-balanced game!  But you said

 

"DA:O had some significant balance issues and broken gameplay systems...but I liked the combat overall in spite of the flaws present and thoroughly enjoyed the game as a whole"

 

was a *lie.*  Not "something you weren't sure about" but an actual *lie* meaning you thought it was false.

 

I mean, what's next?  Using the Fireball targeting graphic to avoid hitting friendlies is seeking and exploiting game mechanics?  This is not up up down down right left right right or something here.

 

 That does not say I was struggling.  You're misinterpreting.  It says that I thought it would have been hard if I didn't have consumables, because up until that point I had never used a healer and did all my healing with poultices.  Once I understood how Wynne's role was supposed to be played, who I acquired in that dungeon but didn't really figure out how to use until later, I no longer needed poultices.  And as it says elsewhere in that post, I didn't have a hard time, and loved the dungeon.  I could take a character in there at the earliest opportunity without an ample supply now that I have that understanding, and I would not be crippled as I had expected.

 

Actually, as you said elsewhere in the post...

 

"challenging fights"

 

Wynne isn't even massively relevant either -- sure, she's a slightly better healer than Morrigan but Morrigan can heal just fine too.  Your entire post is about how you struggled through the dungeon and needed massive amounts of consumables to make it through.  If the problem (which you never stated) was that you were struggling because you didn't have a healer...then that is still struggling at the time.  Because you didn't know the game mechanics yet, so you struggled.

 

It feels like you're trying to be contrary for the sake of being contrary now: "Oh, I didn't *actually* struggle back there, it was just hard because I didn't know how to play yet."

 

1) Low levels of NWN and DAO have less discrepancy in terms of mage survivability than high levels, due to the additional standard attacks per round in NWN every few levels. I don't complain about survivability of Sorcerers/Wizards on first 7-8 levels, but rather past level 12 or so.

 

I'm...feeling dumbfounded here.  I have never heard people complain about the lack of mage survivability at high levels before -- people complain about mages being squishy at low levels.  High level mages in NWN/D&D just become demigods.

 

2) I wasn't talking about just staying there doing nothing. I can record similar video from the final boss battle in Aielund Saga act III, and if I just come close to 3 enemies and do nothing, I will probably die even faster. I was talking about casting disabling spells, for example (I specifically mentioned Mind Blast above). Maybe I am doing something wrong, but, aside from Invisibility, I don't see any viable option for a Sorcerer/Wizard from NWN to be able to stand in front of melee enemies any significant time.

 

You have things like Shadow Shield and Premonition/Stoneskin.  You have 50% concealment long term from Improved Invis normally (or godlike super Improved Invis in Aielund short term).  You have damage shields in the form of Elemental Shield/Acid Sheath.  Hell, one of the most common tactics on PWs is to *get* hit as a mage and kill hordes of monsters with the damage return from ES/AS.

And that's not counting things like just killing the enemies far more easily than you could in DA:O.

 

I mean, what part(s) in particular troubled you?  I will seriously go and record some solo sorcerer play in Aielund at a few points if it helps you.  I'm just at a loss here -- the whole DA:O system was designed in part to *remove* the whole "Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards" problem of D&D where Wizards were so weak early on and then turned into gods by making Mages stronger initially but weaker late game compared to NWN/D&D.

 

In Dragon Age: Origins Alistair can withstand more beating than Morrigan, but he still will suffer a lot - the difference is, maybe, 3 times, but not more than that. In NWN yesterday, in the mentioned final boss battle, Robert (Fighter) stood in front of 4-5 strong melee enemies for over 3 minutes, and I only had to heal him with +10 kits a couple of times. In comparison, when such an enemy was in front of my Sorcerer (with Stoneskin on!), he would deal roughly 25 damage to the Sorcerer with each hit, that is 100 damage per round (maybe 125; I don't know what level they were), that is, even with 20 constitution, the Sorcerer would inevitably die in 3 rounds, unless she could kill the enemy in that time (she could, barely). So, what difference between Fighter and Sorcerer do we have here? I don't even want to count it, but it is well over 50 times.

 

Stoneskin is not really a good spell and that might be part of your problem -- unless burst damage is a serious concern then all it does is effectively pre-emptively heal 100 HP...which is less than one Heal potion at that point.  What about Premonition -- was that up?  That's 40%+ reduction from the golems.  How about Improved Invisibility?  Were your damage shields up -- you should have been reflecting something like 50ish damage per hit you took?

 

Time wise, you're saying it takes Robert 180 seconds to kill 5 enemies, or 36 seconds per enemy.  And whatever you were doing Sorcerer wise, you were killing the enemy in more like 12-18 seconds...and unless you were doing something single target specifically, you could in theory kill all *five* enemies in those 12-18 seconds compared to 180 seconds for Robert.

 

Also, why are you healing with +10 Heal kits when you have unlimited 110 HP potions available?...

 

In DAO, mages can use mana potions, with the stronger ones restoring more than half mana. There is a certain cooldown between the usage, but on higher levels, when half of your mana is enough to cast 7-8 spells in a row, it is barely an issue.

Plus, mana regenerates on its own as well, and with some items and buffs this regeneration can be pretty significant.

 

In NWN, once you've run out of spells, you are toast. You can use scrolls, rods and such, of course, but relying on them never did me any good.

 

And...how often do you rest?  I mean, a level 20 Sorcerer is guaranteed to have at least 7 spells per level with 9 charisma modifier...plus probably more from gear.  That's over two minutes of continuous *hasted* spellcasting just looking at level 3+ spells...and those spells are far more devastating than the DA:O ones in general.

 

Your same argument could apply within NWN as well -- fighters can attack indefinitely while mages will run out of spells.  Better nerf those overpowered fighters and buff those poor mages, right?  Except...the opposite is true and modules/worlds nerf mages/clerics/druics while buffing fighters because casters are so powerful in D&D.  I mean, have you seen how powerful IGMS is in "standard" modules that don't make any balance changes?  You can literally see a boss and then go Time Stop -> Max IGMS -> Max IGMS -> Max IGMS = 720 incoming damage for the boss within a 3-6 second window.

 

Well, I can solo DAO, DA2 and, I think, DAI too with any class too. A lot of craziness is possible if one is willing to put in enough time in it (I even saw a naked weaponless run in Witcher 2 in Dark Mode - pure masochism, of course, but it is possible). But this is beside the point.

 

Is it, though?  Your whole point seemed to be "Mages at high level in NWN are so fragile that they need tanks to protect them"...so if I can easily solo as a mage in NWN, doesn't that indicate your point isn't correct?

 

Regarding Invis, that tends to be a lower level magic tactic since you don't have other spells to cast anyway and your auto-attacks are pretty useless.  At the higher level you're referring to survival is usually not an issue for mages.

 

Control wise, I did create a tool to give better direction to companions (if you select an enemy with it all of your companions will go attack it -- massive improvement in many of the situations which both you since you can actually get the tanks to charge in first).

[Tchos]

MM: Sorry, I read as far as you taking "disagree" to mean "agree to the opposite" instead of "fail to agree", and determined that there's no point in reading any more from you.  There is no further need to continue talking to me.  Good day.

[werelynx]

Folks, don't heat up that much! Just agree to disagree.

[MayCaesar]

Is it, though?  Your whole point seemed to be "Mages at high level in NWN are so fragile that they need tanks to protect them"...so if I can easily solo as a mage in NWN, doesn't that indicate your point isn't correct?

 

I think there is a misunderstanding that makes us speak different languages, without understanding each other's points. I didn't mean to say that mages in NWN cannot survive a beating, and yes, I am aware of a couple of Wizard tanky builds that make soloing OC a cakewalk, although a very tedious one. You can also easily solo DAO as Arcane Warrior (a Mage spec) on Nightmare, as that specialization clearly wasn't thought out well. In terms of ability to build a mage that won't have any trouble surviving even alone these games are equal.

 

However, the mechanics Mages rely on in these games to survive are different. In DAO mages rely on controlling the battlefield by disabling and slowing down enemies. In NWN, they rely on self-buffs instead. Casting the same buffs before each battle is tedious and boring, and, once you are done, not much skill is required to survive. In DAO, however, you don't need to pre-cast anything, you just head into the battle and make decisions as it goes. IF you decide to make your mage in NWN into pure damage dealer, without any defensive buffs, you will be a glass cannon dying to a couple of rounds on later levels. If you go for pure damage dealer in DAO, you will still have a lot of defensive options, since most of damaging spells there also disable enemies in some way. And, again, since you control your entire party, you can always pull a tank back to you if things get hot; this is not really an option in non-modded NWN.

 

My point is, I dislike the way mages are played in NWN games. Not so much in NWN2 since mage there is just one of multiple controlled characters, and since most modules there don't go much beyond level 10 or so, the point at which I start really hating mages. Limited charges, while rarely an issue due to ability to rest in most places, still are an unnecessary annoyance, and one of the reasons I am looking forward to Sword Coast: Legends so eagerly is that it gets rid of this ugly system and replaces it with a usual cooldown mechanics. Which also increases the diversity of the gameplay: as you mentioned, a high level Sorcerer/Wizard in NWN can just spam IGMS all the time for incredible efficiency, while with cooldown mechanism they will have to rotate the cast spells.

[KDD-0063]

I think custom, combat heavy modules are balanced around you having a effective character build, a.k.a. power build, on hardcore difficulty. Also, most modules are actually quite linear (for example, Aielund Saga), so it's very easy to balance around levels.

[Grani]

Just to release this thread's tension a little... regarding the whole Warrior VS Mage debate:



Seriously, though - what MM said is true. Spellcasters are absurdly powerful on high levels. In worlds with low-magic equipment warrior-types will deal less damage to mages than they will do to warriors by just STANDING there with Mestil's Acid Sheath. With higher magic equipment the difference becomes smaller, but wizards are still quite over-powered.

 

I think I managed to balance spellcasters and melee classes (at level 40) for my module by modifying a lot of spells and providing carefully specified equipment, but I can't imagine high-level wizards losing to fighters with no such modifications.

If anyone's interested, the changelog is available here: http://neverwinterva.../pvp-duel-arena

[MrZork]

I tend to agree that epic wizards have a lot of power and, with so many options, tend to be dominant. This will be more pronounced in environments where access to magical effects outside of innate magical ability is rare (low- to mid-magic worlds).

 

But, depending on how one envisions the world setting for the module, that sort of makes sense. After all, our real-world point of view is one where, historically, being effective in a physical confrontation has resulted in dominance, at least in one-on-one encounters. But, in a world where magic is real, it isn't much of a surprise that those with the most talent with magic are dominant.

 

And, of course, the case of a mage with reciprocal damage shields is a good example of a high-level mage having an advantage over a straight-up melee opponent. But, many classes have features that seem overpowered in a given situation. For example, if that high-level melee opponent has dev crit, then the mage is likely to lose that battle anyway.

 

I guess the question becomes why do we care which class has the edge? It's pointless to look at this from a PvP perspective, since that is a tail-chasing game. For pretty much every legit build, there is some other build that can take it down. From a PvE perspective, we would hope that modules that are challenging for one class would be challenging for others as well. But, I personally think it's unrealistic to hope that every encounter will be an equal challenge for every class, at least without nerfing part of what makes some classes fun. Some other threads have been discussing whether a boss that's immune to this effect will/should also be immune to another effect. A fair question, but I must say that I won't bother playing a mage in modules where the boss fights are grind-it-out slug fests or DPS battles because most of the interesting mage tactics are overly nerfed. Not that there is anything wrong with that, for people who enjoy it. But, if I wanted to play an MMO where all classes are tweaked to the final percent for perfect balance, then I wouldn't be playing NWN.

 

It's also worth noting that some part of balance or difficulty in a module is the player's responsibility. Of course, the module author should probably say what he had in mind as far as challenge goes and how the various classes might affect the level of challenge. But, if I play a mage in a module and I stop and rest and rebuff before every battle (which I hate to do because it's boring), then I will expect those battles to be less challenging than if there are rest restrictions or I chose to only rest once per 8 hours or once per area or once per boss or whatever. I usually play assuming I will have to conserve spells and that I don't always know what the best choices will be. (It's actually kind of disappointing when someone in one of these discussions automatically assumes every mage goes into each encounter fully buffed, with 25 IGMSes, etc.) Similarly, if I go into a melee-focused module playing a druid / harper scout / PDK, I am expecting things to be pretty tough. That's my decision going into it.

[MagicalMaster]

MM: Sorry, I read as far as you taking "disagree" to mean "agree to the opposite" instead of "fail to agree", and determined that there's no point in reading any more from you.  There is no further need to continue talking to me.  Good day.

Me: Boy, that sky sure is blue, huh? I even have some facts that seem to support my opinion, like computer analysis of a photograph of the sky compared to how programs represent the color blue
Tchos: I completely disagree with what you say, can't see where you're coming from, and really can't take anything away from your assessment of the sky.
Me: So...you don't think the sky is blue? It's some other color?
Tchos: I did NOT agree to the opposite! I didn't agree that the sky is not blue, I merely failed to agree with your assessment that the sky was blue

Right...

Good day, sirrah, good day.
 

Folks, don't heat up that much! Just agree to disagree.

I tried that. He wasn't having any of it. See statements I made like:

"I'll make you a deal. Say something along the lines of 'DA:O had some significant balance issues and broken gameplay systems...but I liked the combat overall in spite of the flaws present and thoroughly enjoyed the game as a whole' and I'll be more than content."

As you might have noticed, *I* did not like the combat overall and did not enjoy the game as a whole. But if he did? Fine, it's an opinion, we can agree to disagree. But he's also attempting to deny facts...and that last part is where we cannot agree to disagree because it's a question of recognizing reality (of a video game's programming, but you know what I mean) rather than a question of opinion.
 

I think there is a misunderstanding that makes us speak different languages, without understanding each other's points. I didn't mean to say that mages in NWN cannot survive a beating, and yes, I am aware of a couple of Wizard tanky builds that make soloing OC a cakewalk, although a very tedious one. You can also easily solo DAO as Arcane Warrior (a Mage spec) on Nightmare, as that specialization clearly wasn't thought out well. In terms of ability to build a mage that won't have any trouble surviving even alone these games are equal.

I never said anything about soloing the OC being tedious -- you'd rip through it faster than most non-mage builds. You decimate it once you get past the early levels. A mage in NWN with no skill points spent and all feats used for Skill Foci can still easily shred the OC solo. That's very different from needing to pick a specific (and extremely overpowered) class specialization in DA:O.
 

However, the mechanics Mages rely on in these games to survive are different. In DAO mages rely on controlling the battlefield by disabling and slowing down enemies. In NWN, they rely on self-buffs instead. Casting the same buffs before each battle is tedious and boring, and, once you are done, not much skill is required to survive.

Spending 3-6 seconds every 2+ minutes reapplying a few short term buffs is tedious and boring? You literally only need Extended Mestil's Acid Sheath and Extended Elemental Shield for the vast majority of the encounters...and at level 15+ those buffs are lasting 3+ minutes each (which is likely going to be several battles). Outside of that you might be applying, oh, Improved Invisibility, Shadow Shield, Lesser Mind Blank, and True Seeing long term for 15+ minutes (or 30+ minutes if extended) each after resting? 12 seconds of long term prep every half hour or something? What else are you casting at that point?
 

Which also increases the diversity of the gameplay: as you mentioned, a high level Sorcerer/Wizard in NWN can just spam IGMS all the time for incredible efficiency, while with cooldown mechanism they will have to rotate the cast spells.

If you think of the charges as an unnecessary annoyance then part of the problem is that you're looking at the system in the wrong way. It is a necessary annoyance specifically so mages cannot cast their best spells non-stop -- think of it as managing consumables on a journey. You want to use your consumables efficiently so they last long enough and you have the best ones available when you need them. You might *prefer* a system based on cooldowns rather than spells per day (and that's fine, hell, I do too) but mages are already obscenely powerful even WITH the limited spells per day to the point that most worlds nerf spells and/or restrict resting.
 

In worlds with low-magic equipment warrior-types will deal less damage to mages than they will do to warriors by just STANDING there with Mestil's Acid Sheath. With higher magic equipment the difference becomes smaller, but wizards are still quite over-powered.

Indeed. At level 40 the mage is reflecting 81-86 acid damage and 41-48 fire damage per hit (technically a few more as magic with Death Armor if you really want). You need some crazy powerful weapons to make it remotely feasible to do more damage to the mage than you take.

BTW, I perused through your module changelog quickly, had some concerns/confusion if you're interested in hearing them -- but probably would be better suited for a feedback thread or PMs I imagine?
 

A fair question, but I must say that I won't bother playing a mage in modules where the boss fights are grind-it-out slug fests or DPS battles because most of the interesting mage tactics are overly nerfed.

What do you consider to be interesting mage tactics? I don't see how you could consider "Spam X spell until the boss randomly just instantly dies, which could be the first cast or the 40th" interesting mage tactics, no? So presumably you mean something besides random instant death effects.