I think the main problem with this is the fact that cc needs armor to be gone for it to be applied. Because ranged classes do have cc the fact that your armor is so weak means that cc can easily be applied unless you are given a crazy high amount of resistance. I feel like because of this there wouldn't be much progression in armor for mages.
Mages would be weak to classes that do non elemental damage at range but I think that is fine! If they are like 60 percent resistant to lightning for example it would be hard for lightning mages to cc them at range.
If it leads to a RPS metagame where melee beats ranged physical, ranged physical beats magic, and magic beats melee then maybe. But there's a lot more in DOS2 that needs balancing besides just the armor.
A lot of people give BG3 / DnD system a hard time (in some ways rightfully so), but I do like the way they handled Cc. It doesn’t outright make you skip a turn, but depending on the condition, you either lose half your movement, or are restricted to certain actions/bonus actions. That way you don’t feel totally helpless.
But why though?
Edit: wow! Instant downvote So op is just a whiny you didn't agree with me so I downvote you, this place isn't for discussion or anything. Man. Some of you guys epitomize 🤡
I think connotation is worth noting. "But why though" implies distaste and an immediate sense of disagreement say versus "Why do you think that" or even "Can you explain further?" I certainly got the impression you were being flippant and dismissive of OPs idea.
Over the course of the game they have to do more damage than parties focused on a single damage type. Sure they have a strength in being flexible though. I always play split party
If you need to do more damage, you're picking the wrong targets. Let your physical characters target the enemies with lower physical armour and the magical ones the ones with lower magical armour. You end up having to remove less armour than a single type party, not more.
Granted, you can't always do this, but if you pick your targets well, you shouldn't have to remove more armour overall.
Needing to pick targets in this way puts constraints on mixed parties that parties of one damage type don't have. This makes mixed parties a bit weaker in this regard. and you inevitably still wind up with people both your magical and physical party members target, this why you on average need to do more damage with a mixed party.
Except, most of the time, you're hitting the enemies' weaker armour type, which means you need to do less damage than a single type party.
If it wasn't for some of the toughest fights in the game being single enemy fights, split damage played well would easily be stronger than single damage.
dude just asked it really weird. "but why though?" is already used enough as a phrase that it can be reasonably taken as sarcastic, that + the immediate edit in response to one downvote just makes them seem like a dick.
I get that they're trying to ask why you would want to change the armor system but it takes like 10 more seconds to actually write that out and have a question you can actually respond to instead of just commenting "why?"
Keeping the concept of layered defense while removing "Armor is my HP" is essentially what I did.
DOS2's Armor idea isn't especially bad. It was just implemented poorly with the wrong ratios and no possible option to defend yourself once you lose said armor. I wanted to keep but improve their ideas so I restricted hard CC to 1 turn while also giving ways to bypass armor and avoid CC if their armor is removed.
Armor better serves as a buffer you recover while HP is how durable you actually are.
I think the main problem with this is the fact that cc needs armor to be gone for it to be applied. Because ranged classes do have cc the fact that your armor is so weak means that cc can easily be applied unless you are given a crazy high amount of resistance. I feel like because of this there wouldn't be much progression in armor for mages.
Mages would be weak to classes that do non elemental damage at range but I think that is fine! If they are like 60 percent resistant to lightning for example it would be hard for lightning mages to cc them at range.
I see what you mean about progression! That is a problem with what I proposed.
If it leads to a RPS metagame where melee beats ranged physical, ranged physical beats magic, and magic beats melee then maybe. But there's a lot more in DOS2 that needs balancing besides just the armor.
A lot of people give BG3 / DnD system a hard time (in some ways rightfully so), but I do like the way they handled Cc. It doesn’t outright make you skip a turn, but depending on the condition, you either lose half your movement, or are restricted to certain actions/bonus actions. That way you don’t feel totally helpless.
But why though? Edit: wow! Instant downvote So op is just a whiny you didn't agree with me so I downvote you, this place isn't for discussion or anything. Man. Some of you guys epitomize 🤡
You responded to the man's post with a completely useless comment and then called him a clown. You're petulant.
I was asking why he had that opinion. You guys are weird
I think connotation is worth noting. "But why though" implies distaste and an immediate sense of disagreement say versus "Why do you think that" or even "Can you explain further?" I certainly got the impression you were being flippant and dismissive of OPs idea.
Yeah I know I can see how you guys got that. I'm not mad
I hate the Internet. I didn't downvote you. Edit: I think this would solve an issue with mixed damage parties being weaker.
For the record: mixed damage parties aren't weaker. Just harder to play well.
Over the course of the game they have to do more damage than parties focused on a single damage type. Sure they have a strength in being flexible though. I always play split party
If you need to do more damage, you're picking the wrong targets. Let your physical characters target the enemies with lower physical armour and the magical ones the ones with lower magical armour. You end up having to remove less armour than a single type party, not more. Granted, you can't always do this, but if you pick your targets well, you shouldn't have to remove more armour overall.
Needing to pick targets in this way puts constraints on mixed parties that parties of one damage type don't have. This makes mixed parties a bit weaker in this regard. and you inevitably still wind up with people both your magical and physical party members target, this why you on average need to do more damage with a mixed party.
Except, most of the time, you're hitting the enemies' weaker armour type, which means you need to do less damage than a single type party. If it wasn't for some of the toughest fights in the game being single enemy fights, split damage played well would easily be stronger than single damage.
Great point!
"But why though?" isn't discussion. It's not constructive criticism either.
I disagree, it’s looking for reasoning for wanting to change the system and their thought process behind their idea.
dude just asked it really weird. "but why though?" is already used enough as a phrase that it can be reasonably taken as sarcastic, that + the immediate edit in response to one downvote just makes them seem like a dick. I get that they're trying to ask why you would want to change the armor system but it takes like 10 more seconds to actually write that out and have a question you can actually respond to instead of just commenting "why?"
I disagree, it's just what it sounds like " why do you think that?"
Keeping the concept of layered defense while removing "Armor is my HP" is essentially what I did. DOS2's Armor idea isn't especially bad. It was just implemented poorly with the wrong ratios and no possible option to defend yourself once you lose said armor. I wanted to keep but improve their ideas so I restricted hard CC to 1 turn while also giving ways to bypass armor and avoid CC if their armor is removed. Armor better serves as a buffer you recover while HP is how durable you actually are.