RPG combat

[J1M]

Surprised Bloodlines is so high. I like it too but the combat is stinky poopy

Yes, that area of the game is quite average for an RPG. But the vast majority of RPGs have bad combat, so it doesn't drag that game down.

[Norfleet]

Most RPGs have bad combat because they derive their combat rules from tabletop combat rules, and tabletop combat rules are highly abstracted and simplified, meant for operation by humans, so it just looks and plays kinda bad in vidya form. Doesn't have to be this way, though. Some of the oldest RPGs have very GOOD combat mechanics.

[J1M]

Most RPGs have bad combat because they derive their combat rules from tabletop combat rules, and tabletop combat rules are highly abstracted and simplified, meant for operation by humans, so it just looks and plays kinda bad in vidya form. Doesn't have to be this way, though. Some of the oldest RPGs have very GOOD combat mechanics.

I wonder if it is a situation where if you make good combat first, the powers that be release it before investing in the RPG part. And if you do the RPG part first it takes so long they have to release it as is and close the studio.

[rusty_shackleford]

Most game devs suck at video games and barely play any, so it makes sense most games would just be mechanically bad

[Lhynn]

Most RPGs have bad combat because they derive their combat rules from tabletop combat rules

BG3s combat didnt suck though. And its one of the most faithful in its adaptation.

[Norfleet]

BG3s combat didnt suck though. And its one of the most faithful in its adaptation.

BG3's combat is heavily Larianized, though. Sure, it contains faithful tabletop rules (which are honestly, not great), but what makes the combat "good" is that traditional Larian touch, constrained by the tabletop rules to prevent them from ******* it up like they occasionally do in their other games. And, of course, it's only as good as your appreciation of these particular aspects. Is D&D combat actually, truly good? Not really. You're just used to it. It's familiar.

And really, how does one define "good" combat? If one defines "good" combat as entertaining to engage with, it tends to become a little too much of a go-to answer for everything, and maybe that's not actually a good outcome.

[rusty_shackleford]

Most RPGs have bad combat because they derive their combat rules from tabletop combat rules

BG3s combat didnt suck though. And its one of the most faithful in its adaptation.

solasta's combat sucks and it's even more faithful

[Lhynn]

solasta's combat sucks and it's even more faithful

This is a lie, a blatant, horrible lie.

[rusty_shackleford]

solasta's combat sucks and it's even more faithful

This is a lie, a blatant, horrible lie.

BG3 doesn't even stick to the rules for basic things like action economy e.g., bonus action jumps/shoves break the combat

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm actually surprised that @Norfleet is right, but BG3's combat being good is due to larian just ignoring the ******* demanding strict adherence to the rules because 5e combat just isn't fun in video game form
It's actually a shame they didn't do this for e.g., character advancement too. Look at how barebones leveling up is

[edit]
Also has the benefit of good encounter design/(mostly) good AI

[Norfleet]

I'm actually surprised that @Norfleet is right

Why would that be surprising? My rightness is consistently proven on the field of honor. If I wasn't right, I wouldn't keep winning.

because 5e combat just isn't fun in video game form

Which is funny, because post-3E editions of D&D drew a lot of combat system influence from MMORPGs. Then again, MMORPGs pretty much all have terrible combat.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

BG3 lets me blast people off of high ledges a lot, and it will chunk most of their HP if not outright kill them. Very fun. (As opposed to them being teleported back to their prior position at full HP because noooo you're not allowed to do that). Only other game I can think of that let me do that was Matsuno's Tactics/Final Fantasy Tactics games, but even then there were only a couple of opportunities to do so.

[Norfleet]

BG3 lets me blast people off of high ledges a lot, and it will chunk most of their HP if not outright kill them. Very fun. (As opposed to them being teleported back to their prior position at full HP because noooo you're not allowed to do that).

Skyrim had an entire thing that lets you do that. FUS-RO-DAH! Also, you could do that in Jedi Knight, killing minibosses simply by pushing them off ledges. They would jump at you, and you could forz-push them in mid-air, and they'd fail to stick the landing and fall to their certain 3D Doom.

[Jordy]

BG3 lets me blast people off of high ledges a lot, and it will chunk most of their HP if not outright kill them. Very fun.

Not so fun when it happens to you though.

[rusty_shackleford]

BG3 lets me blast people off of high ledges a lot, and it will chunk most of their HP if not outright kill them. Very fun.

Not so fun when it happens to you though.

I was fine with it other than areas where you'd die instantly for ridiculous reasons e.g., falling into water. I'd prefer invisible walls at that point.

[Oyster Sauce]

BG3 lets me blast people off of high ledges a lot, and it will chunk most of their HP if not outright kill them. Very fun.

Not so fun when it happens to you though.

My thrower/kicker dwarf was hilarious in the clone fight

[J1M]

Most RPGs have bad combat because they derive their combat rules from tabletop combat rules

BG3s combat didnt suck though. And its one of the most faithful in its adaptation.

I was able to solve every problem with hand crossbows. Call it combat or encounter design if you want, but something was lacking.

[Norfleet]

I was able to solve every problem with hand crossbows. Call it combat or encounter design if you want, but something was lacking.

Well, like a wise man once said, "When you have shot and killed a man, you have in some measure clarified your attitude towards him. You have given a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or worse, you have acted decisively. In a way, the next move is up to him."

[J1M]

I was able to solve every problem with hand crossbows. Call it combat or encounter design if you want, but something was lacking.

Well, like a wise man once said, "When you have shot and killed a man, you have in some measure clarified your attitude towards him. You have given a definite answer to a definite problem. For better or worse, you have acted decisively. In a way, the next move is up to him."

A less-wise man once said, "make use of the damage types you have added to the game".

[Lhynn]

Most RPGs have bad combat because they derive their combat rules from tabletop combat rules

BG3s combat didnt suck though. And its one of the most faithful in its adaptation.

I was able to solve every problem with hand crossbows. Call it combat or encounter design if you want, but something was lacking.

Maybe to you, I dont place balance high in my list of things I wish for in my rpgs. Besides, im pretty certain it wasnt your monk holding that hand crossbow, im sure there was a lot more behind you beating the encounters than the choice of weapon.

[J1M]

BG3s combat didnt suck though. And its one of the most faithful in its adaptation.

I was able to solve every problem with hand crossbows. Call it combat or encounter design if you want, but something was lacking.

Maybe to you, I dont place balance high in my list of things I wish for in my rpgs. Besides, im pretty certain it wasnt your monk holding that hand crossbow, im sure there was a lot more behind you beating the encounters than the choice of weapon.

Yes, so much more. Technically I had two hand crossbows and took the sharpshooter feat!

I'm absolutely not advocating for balance. I'm advocating for combat to be an important part of the game and not simply a speed bump between conversations.

[Lhynn]

Technically I had two hand crossbows and took the sharpshooter feat!

That cant be all there is to it, you are being disingenous. Class combination, attribute you focused on, the magical gear that empowered all those choices, etc.
Whatever you do, if you want to do it well you need to understand the system and make the right choices, thats how difficulty is handled in good rpgs.

[rusty_shackleford]

I had a fighter that specialized in jump and could solo every encounter on tactician after the first act

[Lhynn]

I had a fighter that specialized in jump and could solo every encounter on tactician after the first act

Yeah, so? Want me to give you a participation trophy?

[rusty_shackleford]

I had a fighter that specialized in jump and could solo every encounter on tactician after the first act

Yeah, so? Want me to give you a participation trophy?

Yea?

[rusty_shackleford]

@Custodial Engineer this thread needs cleaned up y'know

[Jordy]

[J1M]

Technically I had two hand crossbows and took the sharpshooter feat!

That cant be all there is to it, you are being disingenous. Class combination, attribute you focused on, the magical gear that empowered all those choices, etc.
Whatever you do, if you want to do it well you need to understand the system and make the right choices, thats how difficulty is handled in good rpgs.

Not really. You just do basic things like get attack bonuses to offset the feat that adds +10 flat damage per hit and take class options that give you extra attacks. (Those are available via fighter, ranger, rogue, or bard.) You can combine them if you want to kill a dragon in one round, but it isn't rocket science that being able to use your turns attacking instead of buffing or getting into position deals more damage.

[Norfleet]

A less-wise man once said, "make use of the damage types you have added to the game".

The thing with "multiple damage types" is that this is typically only a mechanic that matters at low level play and becomes irrelevant at high level play. When you are a noob and have no functional build or gear, it's easy to switch damage types by picking up some random item. When you are a high level character with a +20 sword and a skilltree spec that gives you +9001% damage with swords, you are locked in to sword damage. The build cost of switching to anything else simply makes doing this non-viable, as this level of performance has become baseline for your level and a split focus creates a non-viable build that is simply useless in multiple different ways instead of useful in one specific way.

[J1M]

A less-wise man once said, "make use of the damage types you have added to the game".

The thing with "multiple damage types" is that this is typically only a mechanic that matters at low level play and becomes irrelevant at high level play. When you are a noob and have no functional build or gear, it's easy to switch damage types by picking up some random item. When you are a high level character with a +20 sword and a skilltree spec that gives you +9001% damage with swords, you are locked in to sword damage. The build cost of switching to anything else simply makes doing this non-viable, as this level of performance has become baseline for your level and a split focus creates a non-viable build that is simply useless in multiple different ways instead of useful in one specific way.

Hence why encounters should test a party instead of an individual. A game with great design will create a variety of situations where different characters are the MVP across various encounters.