Make Counterattack require a successful dodge

Yeah, amazingly, I have a slight concern about the upcoming combat system. I LOVE the direction it's taking with critical. COUNTER, on the other hand...

Well, there are currently three methods of physical defense. Let's go over them with the new system:

Dodge: Nullifies damage. Countered by EDR.

Block: halves damage before resistances are applied. Countered by critical.

Counterattack: Nullifies damage entirely, and lets you make an attack instead. Countered by nothing.

Yes, I realize that critical hits are a counter for Counterattack's OFFENSIVE aspect, but not the DEFENSIVE. If you roll a counterattack, there is absolutely nothing in the entire game, no enemy, nothing whatsoever that can harm you.

Were you to get dodge to 100, enemies' EDR would mean you would still be possible to hit.

Were you to get block to 100, powerful attacks and/or critical hits would still be able to harm you.

Were you to get counterattack to 100, on the other hand, you're completely and totally immune to melee attacks of any kind, and that's not counting the fact that enemies would basically murder themselves on their own upon coming into contact with you.

Block and counterattack both scale at a 3 levels to 2 points ratio with their proper archetypes, yet counterattack is indisputably superior in every concievable way. There's no reason whatsoever why you would prefer block to counterattack.

Yes, block is easier to increase due to equipment, but equipment is usable by anybody, so the growth rates are what matter. The issue is that we have a stat, the best defensive stat in the game, that isn't countered by anything at all.

My suggestion: Make counterattack only trigger if you DO dodge, not if you DON'T. That way it would, indirectly, be countered by EDR. I suppose this might call for a slight buff in its growth rate, and I wouldn't mind that, because at least this way there would be a defense.

It also makes more sense; rather than counterattack being a dodge and counterattack in one, it's just a counterattack, and it requires that you have actually evaded an attack for it to work.

Any thoughts?

 

I think that counterattack is only countered by itself--remember that a counter can be cross-countered. However, in order to avoid shenanigans when stats approach 100, why not simply take the difference between the two foes' counter stats and give the higher one that % to counter?

 

I'm a bit hesitant about that idea, as it would mean that the only way to defend against counterattacks would be a stat that has more than one use. I think making it require a dodge would be simpler and tidier.

 

Or you could just have the counterattack stat only produce an offensive effect. So when it triggers, it doesn't change (or depend on) whether or not you were hit, it merely does damage to the enemy. 100% counter would still be really useful and basically double your damage output over time, but you couldn't get by without some other defense.

 

that works for me as well.

 

I like this, too.

 

I like both options. Though the one where counter doesn't annul the damage dealt to the target is one I perceive as better.

 

It sounds interesting to have counter as a separate proc than dodge and block.
You could dodge AND counter if you re lucky and having good stats in both. Still getting damage if only countering sounds good.

I am not sure if counter is so overpowered though: I know some people have raised block or crits to 100 or above but isnt it harder to raise counter to 100 ?

 

Yeah, that's true. However...

I brought up the issue of them raised to 100 to point out how drastic the difference between them is, and to highlight the point that the stat is a perfect defense, great offense, and devoid of any countermeasure.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that they are not equal, but I think that is the way they were designed on purpose. I still like the idea of counter being proc separately. It seems more logical.

 

Meh. I'm not convinced that this is worthy of attention. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get Counterattack up past about 50?

 

Until one of us comes along and mods a skill or item that changes that. Or, more likely, four or five people each mod a new warrior skill with a little bit of counter, and that when those 4 are combined with dual-wield and swords you hit 80+ counter with ease.

Not that such a corner case is worrisome enough to justify revamping the combat system. Gaslamp would go crazy trying to solve every broken situation a modder could theoretically create.

So, yeah, probably best to just leave well enough alone and get the patch out the door, rather than open a new can of worms.

For the record: I've had counter in the low 60s (dual-sword rogue), but that was on floor 13 and I wasn't getting any more levels to improve it with. Then I underestimated the tuber-spirit and witch-head zoo and teleported into it to show off my badass character to my wife. Oops.

 

I'd agree it wouldn't need changing, except that this upcoming update is going to make counter even better than it currently is, be removing the one thing that can override it. Counter is already dangerous in the later levels, I fear it will become even more broken in the new update if nothing happens.

 

You might be right on that, best way to know will be to try the beta. The way I was seeing it is just that lower level monsters had a way too high level of counter. Rather than reducing counter I was originally feeling like common monsters should not get a 20% chance of counter if it is combined with high attack power (Arch diggle, im looking at you). Only named ones maybe.

 

I'm not too worried about it. Anytime you nerf the single most potent stat, it's always going to make the second-best stat look that much better by comparison. (And if you nerf it as well, the third-best will step up.)

As potent as counter is, it was crit that is responsible for the killing of melee characters. Granted, it was usually a combo of counter-crit followed by a second crit, but the crit there accounted for 50% of the damage and shut down all defenses. Dodge and block will soon be able to protect against the crit, the total amount of damage being taken should be reduced significantly.

Before the nerfing, if a monster scored the infamous "counter-crit then second crit", they did 4x their base damage. There was nothing you could do about it.

Post nerf, assuming a hypothetical "easy math" character with 50% post-EDR dodge and 50% block, that total damage scored by the monster drops significantly. There's a 25% chance of you taking zero damage, and the total chance to take the 4x Damage we were stuck with before is just 06.25%. Average damage will be 1.5x base.

Unless I'm missing something, that's a huge improvement to the survival rate of melee builds.

 

Equipment being usable by 'anybody' is part of the problem. When I made the original 'new combat mechanics' post I was envisioning two distinct archetypes:

Rogue

• Hardly any /
• Lots of /
• Chaotic
  • If you're lucky you can wade through monsters taking no damage
  • If you're unlucky you'll take a massive hit and have to use your roguish skills to escape

Warrior

• Hardly any /
• Lots of /
• Consistent
  • You take a constant, predictable stream of damage
  • Even if you're unlucky it's not particularly devastating

In my mind this is a fair trade. Consistency is vital in Roguelikes. It's impossible to max out dodge and counter so even the most dashing Rogue will be taking a chance on every hit.

That said, the current equipment break the system. Imperial Boilerplate, arguably the best armor in the game, only has a -4 penalty - that's -2, -1, -3 and not even -1. All the heavy armors need to be given higher / penalties.

 

I agree. But what's funny is that while defensively rogue is chaotic and warrior is consistent, it's the exact opposite for offense. Warriors, ideally, miss a lot, but deal heavy damage when they hit, while rogues would deal lower, yet consistent, damage

 

Disagree. Rogues should be low-damage crit machines, whereas warriors should deal regular medium damage. But that's just my lingering prejudice as a D&D designer.

 

I'm just saying that's how the stats work out, not how it should be

 

Ah, gotcha. The word "ideally" threw me.