Mr. Magniloquent

Well played, but I will remind that Government does not equate society, nor culture. Rights are a moral construct, which is a cultural phenomena. This predates The State. In that way, Rights exist prior and outside of the The State's legitimate authority and purview to grant, restrain, or qualify. That The State has any legitimate or moral authority is itself a myth, much in the way of "The Social Contract" fable.

Class differentiation could have been easily achieved simply through the resource mechanics that the classes employ. Nobody confused Bards, Sorcerers, and Wizards in BG2, or any other game. Instead he fractured the entire magic system into contrived and boring MMO roles that can safely be claimed that every backer here unanimously rejects. Reviving what was great about the classics with 4th edition D&D MMO crap? Seriously? It would go a long way to give Chanters, Ciphers, and Wizards access to the same spell list. Chanters would still select and cast them as free "evocations", Ciphers would still have to mine soul energy to cast, and Wizards would have their conventional resource limitations. That one single thing would do WONDERS. It won't happen though. Josh Sawyer fears wizards breaking his game THAT much. Never mind that all of the spells were made mediocre in both capability and duration. It would just be too much to endure for him. The omni-class is gonna get'cha! Boo! The motivations for obliterating magic and their subsequent classes is all the more confusing and pointless consider that the original design gave every class the ability to, detect trap, disarm traps, pick locks, stealth, craft, repair, perform feats of athleticism, resolve every dialogue option, etc. *Edited to quote box.

I shall never fund another game by Obsidian while Josh Sawyer is employed there. There is still room for precarious hope, but many of the major design choices directly attributable to Josh Sawyer on PoE are questionable at best. I'm crossing my fingers that they have kept their word in PoE being accommodating to modding. Much can happen between now and May, but I'm not encouraged.

They way overcomplicated this game out of fear and loathing for the wizard. Particulary with regards to the Wizard, Chanter, and Cipher, they could have all shared the very same spell list. Their resource mechanic would have been PLENTY to distinguish these classes. Wizards would be limited by per rest usage, Ciphers would incur their soul point cost, and Chanters would get them for free, but would have to wait around to cast like. That's a massive distinction in play-styles. Considering that Druids and Priests don't even derive their magic from gods in PoE, all the casters could have shared the same massive spell list! Instead, they chose to make unnecessary work for themselves and prioritize eviscerating a "core" class. The joke is on them though. Come release date, people will gravitate towards the wizard, and they will hate it and the game in turn. The absence of prebuffing wouldn't be a problem for me if spell durations lasted more than 2 or three weapon swings and actually provided significant protection. They don't though. So it's just yet another failure to add to the lengthy list. PoE is not a remake of Baldur's Gate 2. Claiming that something wasn't in BG1, so it therefore shan't be missed in PoE is a red-herring. This game is patterned after ALL of the IE games. IWD 1 & 2. BG 1 & 2, TotSC & ToB. Planescape Torment. Pitching the game on that note, then discarding such an essential component was a falsehood. Try playing this game without a fighter. Let me know how that works out for you. Try having that fighter without a DPS class of some sort to back it. You couldn't be more wrong about being able to build whatever party you want. Each class is shelled into a specific MMO role where none are sufficient to act without a class from another role. One of the QA testers recently did that with a party of only Chanters, and Mr. Sawyer promptly tweeted about how he needed to nerf chanters now.

The druid and chanter have about a dozen summoning spells between them, and I believe the wizard has at least one summon spell. Any character can use figurines to summon stuff. That's because the stealth in this game functions as actual stealth, dependent on factors like enemy proximity and how long you're in the enemy's line of sight. It's not the 'turn invisible (even right in front of an enemy)' mode from the IE games which wasn't a good implementation of stealth at all. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be any invisibility spells, you're right about that. During combat, you will not be able to stealth around a corner when LOS is broken and ambush an enemy with a sneak attack when they pursue in PoE. This is a legitimate tactic, and is not possible in this game. This strikes me as a touch dramatic. Summons cannot be cast outside of combat and vanish at combats end, and are almost the exclusive province of Chanters. Even still, combat tends to be over for me by the time I actually even get the chance to invoke a summon. How wonderfully useful. Better hope that summons counts for something too, because it's going to be a long wait before you're graced with the privilege to cast one again. Blights for the druid and the petty "lightning clone" or whatever wizard gets is hardly equivalent to what the IE games provided. The summoning provided with pathetic by comparison both in capability and enjoyment, and does nothing to aid with wizard class itself. It remains a shell. Again, none of the tactics Yonjiro mention will be possible in this game. Nearly every single spell in this game is a mediocre Not-D&D facsimile. Sleep *ahem* Call to Slumber is a weaker version of a 1st level spell that you cannot even use until level 10. Stoneskin *ahem* Ironskin gives you a paltry DR bonus for 10 attacks, rather than block one physical attack for every two levels. If you don't understand why that distinction is important, particularly at higher levels, then you don't understand the nuances of IE spell casting. The rest are more of the same, applying various degrees of the same effect for worthless durations even when they aren't being invalidated by a graze. All of the amazing illusions spells will never happen in this game. The sequencers, the contingencies, counters, summons, wish spells, all gone. Everything about magic was stripped down, made bland, then appropriated to other classes. The wizard has nothing left by a very poor and ineffective interpretation of 4th Edition D&D.

I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make by linking that. None of the kind of tactics that Yonjiro mentions will be possible in PoE. There are effectively no summons, no invisibility, you cannot stealth while in combat, combat spells cannot be cast before combat beings, and immediately end once combat ends. It's what Stun has been arguing. All of the "magic" has been taken out of magic. We're left with contrived, nerfed, and boring facsimiles of what was good about spell casting in the IE games and expected to like it.

And you're not alone. What this thread was originally about was the difficulty or management of combat on Easy difficulty. The conversation unfortunately devolved into an argument about combat mechanics. It was illuminating for awhile to get a basic idea of pros/cons from different perspectives, but it has mostly become silly at this point. That's a quote from myself in the "Invisible Combat Round" thread. Overall combat that does not regard spell casting/ability use is pretty good. The fundamentals are there. Some aspects need more tweaking than others, like engagement, but otherwise it's not bad. Where combat begins to botch itself is when spell casting and abilities enter the equation. Even still, that can be fixed. What is really the question, is whether Obsidian considers anything wrong with the current setup. That's a major concern of mine right now.

What should be used for a more accurate comparison is the BG2 spell selection for levels 1 through 6. That is the expectation that everyone has been asking for and operating off of. Even if you consider that an unfair comparison because many of the spells were added in a sequel game, PoEs spell list does not hold up to scrutiny against even Icewind Dale level 1 through 6 wizard spells. I had always regarded IWD's spell selection inferior, and never understood why since the games utilized the same engine. Now I know. The reason we regard Obsidian (Mr. Sawyer) as hostile towards spell casting, is because he is. It's that simple. It starts with the fear of the "omni-class", so magic with any sort of utility is removed--including those with flexible uses like Scrying and Invisibility spells. It worsened with the fear of out-moding party members, so summons were removed. Then came the terror of damage potential, which made spell damage mediocre at best. Closely followed was the horror of "hard-counters", which eliminated effects like petrification, death, and disintegration. Likewise there was the scourge of the meaningful protections which granted immunities of any form or duration, so they too were laid low. Finally, the most unique and intriguing of spells--of which have never been reproduced in an video game for 15 years....Contingencies, Simulacrums, Project Image, Time Stop, (Limited) Wish, etc. etc.....all purged so that this game might not be tainted by what created an unrivaled classic. That's why were are skeptical. Everything good, intriguing, and superior about spell casting in Baldur's Gate has been eviscerated by design. For the reasons above, I have no hope that the spell selection will improve. It shall not, by edit of Mr. Sawyer. What can improve though, are the miserably handled degrees of everything else. That was actually the point of this thread. In my proposal, I have extensive rebalanced figures for both damage, durations, casting times and much more. Spell damage is rebalanced to make it meaningful, considering its limited use, as well as put the wizard's participation rate about that of any warrior. Durations were rebalanced to make them meaningful beyond 2 or 3 weapon swings. Spell casting and recovery times were balanced and scaled over spell level, so that they appropriate reflect their power level. This is important, as it help improve the "asynchronous" nature of PoE combat. Improved logical consistency of the class by adopting a different resource mechanic that also better reflects the wizard's (imposed) role. Provided a desperately needed friendly-fire mitigation method. That's really what I hoped to discuss within this thread. These are things that are desperately needed and have the potential to be changed. We're not getting a good spell selection. That has been ordained from "on high". What may be changed though, is the execution of what ashes remain of the class, and how that can be improved. Woefully, nobody seems to want to discuss this.

This is my least productive thread ever. I regret creating it. I can at least hope that this thread may be held in effigy as the utter abomination and failure of this class and the broader magic system. When the obnoxious guest on the twitch stream selects the Wizard class at 1:26, Josh's inflection rises almost to a crack as he says, "Alright". I think he knows.

Right. License. Permission. There is nothing good about that. Business licenses are immoral. It is The State claiming that you may not operate and enterprise to support your life without paying your "protection money". Fail to pay your protection money, and....maybe your business doesn't do so good. Maybe some guys with guns come on over a shut you down. Capiche? This is The State contending that *you* are its property. That's the full circle of my first comment in this thread. The State is immoral, and voting is legitimizing that evil. An eligible voter turn-out of 33% is joyous news. I suggests that people are waking up the the false dichotomy of Red vs. Blue--and therefore the true nature of The State.

No. ISIS is a creation of the USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Britain, Jordan, and Qatar. The entire business was rooted in Syria. Those actors I listed above have been arming, training, funding, and equipping terrorists in Syria since....2011 really. Even the alleged chemical weapons attacks. Those crimes got hushed because it was discovered that Saudi Arabia had been supplying the chemicals. Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia even boasted how no terrorist activity goes on in Chechnya without his blessing. Prince Bandar was then the head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence and secret police agencies. Even the name ISIS screams western puppet. Why would a hardline Whabbist Islamic cult give itself an English name with an acronym that spells out the name of a pagan god? Really? ISIS is about destabilizing Syria for several reasons: Permit the creation of a gas pipeline from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Europe, so that Russian gas may be forgone. Further isolating the real prize, Iran by eliminating its ally--a perceived threat to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Creating a boogeyman for USA domestic consumption so that The War of Terror can be justified. Former denying Russia a warm-water port--though this has been outmoded by the secession of Crimea. ISIS also has tacit support from Turkey, as ISIS is severely harming Kurds--of whom they are opposed. The frightening reality is that ISIS is just another western foil like that of Al Qaeda was, just refreshed for a new generation. ISIS does not exist outside of western funding, training, and general support.

The combat isn't fun, and i don't see how this will really fix it. That's really what it comes down to. Combat isn't as fun as it should be, but engagement is far from even the #1 reason why that's the case. It just one of many contributors. My thoughts are similar to Shevek's in that I feel the engagement problem is a bit overstated even in its currently broken form. If done properly, I think engagement will not only cease being a problem, but an enhancement. I also find it much more realistic and conceptually preferable than any alternatives--even its absence.

A business is personal property. It is no different than the shirt you are wearing. Just as your shirt can be clothing, kindling for a fire, or a wash rag, a business serves the purposes of the owner. It is how the person expends their time and resources to live within the world. There are few things more personal than that. Forcibly compelling the business (owner) under the threat of violence and theft to work for the benefit of another against their will is the very definition of slavery. Bigotry is undesirable, but slavery is not a solution.

I do believe that it should be permitted. That is different from saying that I am fine with it. The alternative is slavery. Slavery is not a rational or acceptable solution for bigotry. The moment you start entitling others to the lives and property of another--let alone against their will, you have no basis for morals.

Yeah, and now imagine that the same couple wanted to host their wedding in your own home too. If the bakers are not free to operate their property according to their will, then how is their home any different? Where do you draw the line? You can't--not without being hypocritical and illogical. Bigotry is undesirable, but codifying in law that one must be compelled to interaction is slavery. Attempting to correct bigotry with slavery is an outrageous proposition. Property rights are an extension of self ownership. If the law can compel a baker to offer one service, then they can be legally compelled to provide any service. It actually ceases being a service, because the act is not consensual--it's compelled labor. That's slavery.

Hahaha. That was a typo! I did edit that to a penalty rather than a bonus. The total changes I would make to disengagement attacks would be thus: Respect weapon reach. Remove damage bonus and accuracy bonus. Incur accuracy penalty. Incur normal recovery time. Essentially, it would give a warrior a free but inaccurate chance to interrupt and potentially damage any passerby. So yes, it would function like you say. Kiting characters could be caught, rushing characters could be inhibited, etc. Grazing damage is often trivial in my opinion, but it does add up. So while it wouldn't paralyze movement, it would eliminate silly chases or waltzing by opponent shenanigans.

The only thing encouraging about this election was the voter turn-out. Only 1 in 3 eligible voters cared to show up. That is indicative that perhaps the other two understand the false dichotomy of Red vs. Blue. Nothing about this election will change anything. Economic liberty will still decrease. Personal liberty will still decrease. That is the function of The State. It is legalized crime and oppression. Voting for who gets to hold the reigns of violence and theft is merely legitimizing that evil. Hopefully poor voter turnout is a tacit realization of this.

I think you're being a bit dramatic IndiraLightfoot. I can't say that I feel overwhelmed by combat, particularly since v301. I did pause a great deal in the IE games, much in the way Kjaamor describes, so that may be part of it. Have you tried the slow-motion option?

No, you didn't really fix anything with this. With that much damage it still makes moving around for tactical repositioning ALWAYS a bad idea. You're going to have to waste a heal every time you do it. And i already explained 3 pages back why you can't balance the mechanic by making the damage lower. Because you either make the engagement pointless on normal or you didn't fix anything on Path of the Damned Also being able to disengage without the use of abilities makes combat even less tactical than it's "trying" to be now. While I haven't listed it here, I actually in the past have always encouraged that disengagement attacks get an accuracy penalty, to pressure them towards being grazes. It's not listed here, so I understand why you replied in that manner. Engagement has much more to do with than dealing damage. It (theoretically) allows melee character to catch kiting ranged attackers, improves warrior ability to block and protect other classes (very necessary, since buffs are completely nerfed by design), and imposes a damage penalty on ignoring a combatant. It serves many functions. That disengagement provides an interrupt is the most important of them. If nearly all of the mechanisms where disengagement attacks operate outside of normal combat removed, engagement would largely act as a brief movement inhibition. Movement would still be possible and practical, but using the disengagement abilities would be an asset rather than a necessity. *Edit. I also don't think using Path of the Damned is a good context for balancing the systems of this game. It's a kind of bonus punitive mode that is designed to be well...punitive. Anything that misbehaves in that mode is pretty ignorable in my opinion.

I was under the impression that first the spell had to "hit", then it has to overcome the various DT/DR/Resistances. Same as melee attacks. Is that not the case? It's one roll. Accuracy is compared against a defense statistic. That difference is then added to your d100 roll, which determines the hit quality type (miss, graze, hit, critical). Damage threshold and damage resistance are then applied to the outcome (if applicable). So: First, the Accuracy is determined. While this does determine if it hits, anything that does strike uses this same value for determining ultimate damage. (Accuracy - Defense + d100 Roll) Let's say that this outcome was a graze. The damage would then be calculated at: Damage Roll - 50% - Damage Threshold - Damage Resistance Percentage. Anything that does not use damage merely omits the Damage Threshold and Resistance subtractions. It is all one roll though. Just think of a miss as a -100% modifier, rather than a separate ranged touch attack type component. *Edited for clarity.

Changing your weapon damage values to compensate for an increased might bonus to account for overall DR & DT balance is questionable. That alters the fundamentals in a way where might changes from being less about style, and more necessary than not. Essentially, players who now opt out of moving might above baseline (10) will be penalized, rather than simply forgo enjoyment of a bonus. I agree in your pondering if they are reading these forums anymore. The only time I ever do meaningful impact with any weapon, spell, or ability is typically through a critical hit. Damage is secondary to accuracy, and that's where the real outcomes are decided.

I was typing for some time to add to this, but you've really said it all for me. Quoted for truth, as the vernacular goes.

I backed this game for Infinity Engine combat, not Neverwinter Nights 2 combat with an isometric camera (which is what this game is atm). I am not the only backer that has this opinion, there are many of us. lol Unabashed opinion stated as fact. You claim to speak for the nameless masses very often. Invoking some nameless majority as supporting you is not an argument, let alone a factual one. Not an argument. Everything that is wrong with engagement can be addressed by changing the bonuses it grants. Problem: Engagement operates outside of weapon reach. Solution: Restrain it to weapon reach, like very other attack. Problem: Disengagement attacks inflict too much damage. Solution: Remove the damage and accuracy bonuses. Problem: Disengagement attacks can be exploited through kiting--the very thing they were supposed to inhibit. Solution: Have disengagement attacks incur a recovery time, as per normal combat. There it is. Done. Solved. Every problem with engagement resolved. Maybe that's not good enough though. Perhaps Obsidian should instead remove engagement, totally rebuild their AI to account for its absence, conceptualize, construct, debug, and balance an entire slew of ad-hoc abilities for creating "stickiness", generate new AI for the deployment of these abilities, all the while not increasing the amount of pausing required of the player through the active use of these new hypothetical abilities? Would that work out better, do you think?

Actually, it is not. For the price of one scroll and one staff (in vanilla BG2), a level eight fighter can defeat The Almighty Kangaxx. Mind you, it was contrived as an insanely difficult boss to be a homage to Gary Gygax. It's an aside of the game, something that was never meant to be fair. It doesn't even matter to PoE. Hard counters will never happen because of Mr. Sawyer. Don't bother arguing, you've already been delivered what you're debating over. Does magic in PoE really feel better than in BG2? Anyway...back to a conversation relevant to this game. You might as well walk away now then. That aspect is most certainly not going to change at all. What is your complaint with the accuracy system though? The saving throw that enemies get essentially is the accuracy. The wizard's accuracy must overcome a defense of the opponent, whether that be Fortitude, Reflex, Will, or Deflection. That's not really any different than D&D 3.0 Edition. The problems with this resolution system are in "quibbling over pennies" as it's the degrees of things like DT, DR, Damage:Hit Point ratios, spells per day, base class accuracy that are really mucking things up. The general mechanic, which is conceptually sound, is being mired by poor tuning. Believe me that I echo your opinions both on the BG spell casting and it's comparison to the PoE "spell casting". Right now PoE spell casting is a joke that nobody is laughing at. I resent it. To remedy that problem though, an amicable foundation must be set before we can even approach getting better spell design. Once a fundamental power curve and standardized intervals are established, spells can actually be created in a sensible, consistent, and superior fashion. You will not get better spells until the full scope of the class's output and features have been settled. It's the very reason why I started this thread. I wanted to get this conversation going, because it's painfully obvious Obsidian hasn't.

Emphasis mine. Agreed many times over though.