Mr. Magniloquent

So does everyone just want to bicker, or would they like to discuss the actual level of appropriate balance? Consider this table as reference. Each has the endurance displayed for each level for each durability type (low, average, high, very high). To determine the total health per day, multiply it by that class's modifer. For example, Monks have "High" endurance, and use a modifier of x5. At a neutral constitution, this would give them a daily health of 1540. Again, this is for illustrative purposes. Now look at the damage tables I have arranged. They are setup to use a default hit quality distribution of 5% miss, 45% graze, 45% hit, and 5% critical. This is all relative of course, and the wizard's accuracy outcomes would be lower, as they have "Low" starting accuracy. The table with reference as to damage per spell level is at the bottom. They are setup so that their power scales linearly with level. The three large tables above them are the total damage output based on the hit quality distribution table whether the damage rolls are lowest, average, or highest possible. In the bottom right corner, you can see the damage output to total health (using a monk as comparison) are very close. This ratio stays fair intact even below level 20 comparisons, because all scales were linear matches to the endurance progression. At first, a health to damage ratio of 6:7 (high) or even 8:7 (average) might seem a bit much, but take into account that these values do not take damage resistance or damage threshold into account. Furthermore, every single spell cast by a wizard would need to be a damage devoted spell. When factoring those considerations, it's clear to see that the total actual damage output would be much lower than represented here. Even still, I feel like these values make wizard damage more meaningful, consistent, and ensure that they have a relative "adventuring day" very similar to any warrior class. That was one of my fundamental efforts in achieving balance. As a note, just like outlined in the full paper, these values are balanced through a spell point system where each spell has a casting cost equal to its level. That table is provided to the left. What's good about this, is that if a player wants to cast non-stop all day with lower spells or reserve themselves for major actions, they can. Either way, (before DR & DT) total damage output potential is the same. What do you guys think of these damage figures? Do they feel appropriate?

Yes, this was deliberate. Mr. Sawyer feels that the wizard class within D&D is an omniclass that cannot be suffered or endured. Its very presence breaks the fabric of any game system. As such, he obliterated the class and scattered its ashes across all of the others. See Quetzalcoatl's quote: While I agree with you, and will be modding this travesty out, I feel it would be prudent to try and do what can be done now to minimize that effort. I most certainly agree with what many have said here in that the wizard's spell selection is merely dismal. This is not likely to change before modding. Even on the video where Mr. Sawyer talked about "some cool spells", he talked about the god-awful switch-positions spells, and a few spells were the wizard conjures a magical weapon. That should give you an indication. I feel like I shouldn't have put the bullet points in my original post. Massive amounts of those files were dedicated to re-balancing damage, durations, cast times, and even spell per day to provide for everything people have mentioned here. I took considerable effort to balance the wizard's damage per day output to where each spell would be meaningful without being "unbalanced" or game-breaking. Durations were adjusted in a thorough manner as well. Casting speeds were staggered on a linear scale to the spell level, and the effective spells per day was even shown under all of these new balanced parameters. Did no one look at those values? Even the concerns of being able to cast all day vs producing few but very powerful spells was addressed. That was one of the reasons to adopt soul/spell points. Again, did anyone actually look at the values for damage, duration, casting times, and effective spells per day? I really think that you guys will find them worth-while.

The wizard class is indisputably the most disastrous class in both concept and implementation of all the classes within Pillars of Eternity. I have been diligently pondering ways of salvaging the class, while staying true to the unique setting constraints of Pillars of Eternity. Linked here are two sister documents detailing those ideas. The first is a PDF explaining the general concepts, and the second is a MS Excel file with lavish pivot tables attempting to demonstrate proof-of-concept for these ideas and rebalanced variables. They are designed to be changed "on-the-fly", and I encourage anyone and everyone to do so. The Recompiled Wizard Basic Overview: Adopt a Soul/Spell Point resource system for the wizard class. Reconfigure to the grimiore to behave in more significant manner to both the class and setting. Suggested mechanisms for mitigating friendly-fire. Rebalanced casting times. Rebalanced and standardized spell damage and spell durations. I feel that the best aspects of my proposals are that all but one of them are quite mundane changes. I made an effort to have these solutions incorporate existing and functioning PoE systems. I'd like to know what you backers think about these ideas, and start a meaningful discussion about what ideas we can generate to improve this class. Many players--new and old alike, will likely gravitate towards one of the "core four". Pillars of Eternity will not be a success if viewed through the lens of the wizard class as it exists, and that is a dangerous proposition.

..that's a good observation. And sure, with a flat bonus for all party-members, this begs to be exploited. So looogically, if Obsidian wants to keep the attribute system they have now, they would obviously need to change the disengagement mechanic. If the disengagement bonus was made lower, and we ended up with perhaps some sort of penalty as well, it would be less broken -- and identical to NWN and the IE games, with all the problems that system had. It's not my preferred solution. And I just wanted to point out that if you wanted attacks of opportunity with any sort of consistency - in the earlier variant - then you would have to sacrifice something else. And the engagement limit would be important, and so on. You would then have powerful interrupt penalties for some specialists, and the engagement block that Josh described with how a wizard would actually be defended by a skilled fighter, instead of being swarmed by mobs running past the fighter while blowing raspberries, like in the IE games -- would actually work.... ...The criticism against that system: it is complicated and casual people don't understand it, sadly also applies to the new variant. Perhaps to an even greater extent. But yeah, I you're absolutely right that the current system could be made less obviously exploitable, by reducing the bonus from disengagement attacks. And that it would just make the payoff from exploiting it lower - not actually "fix the system". It would still be broken. Meanwhile, I think it's worth pointing out that the reason why that "problem" now exists, and that the engagement system is broken, is that all classes have gained bonuses that didn't exist in the earlier variant of the rules. And that this is the direct cause of why it is at all exploitable.... ....It's just my opinion - but I think the way Obsidian has gone about implementing things in the beta reeks of that conclusion to the project. From looking at it, I also think it's highly unlikely that they will retread anything, because the new implementations seem so intertwined with the rest. So I really don't think it's actually doable for them, technically, to go back, even if they wanted to. Doing so would also essentially admit that they've wasted several months for no reason, while then potentially decide to remake a solution that "the community hates". And I don't think anyone at Obsidian has the balls to do that now. *shrug* You are absolutely correct in that having changed the fundamentals of their system, that layers which were dependent on them have suffered. I'm not entirely sure what bonus you are referring to though. The item I can think of is that disengagement attacks guarantee interruption, whereas it was initially dependent on Resolve. Am I understanding you correctly? I do think it has a place though. Engagement makes formations practical by providing better blocking and can subdue kiting shenanigans that the IE games were rife with. I do not think creating a dozen or two contrived ad-hoc abilities would solve tactical movement. That's one of my major criticisms for this game. Abilities, spells, the classes themselves...they are all kind of "boot-strapped" in to satisfy one particular issue. There is no cohesive structure to many of them, and it is largely responsible for any asynchronous nature in PoE's combat. Then there is the issue of creating the AI to handle using these abilities under sensible parameters, which somehow act timely without being preempted by recovery, and cause the player to pause even more often than they currently do. Engagement provides a unified mechanism that will occur automatically and therefore, predictably. First, disengagement needs to respect weapon reach. Anything else is nonsensical. Second the bonuses to damage and accuracy need to be removed. If it is an opportunistic action, then it is reflexive and impulsive. There is nothing about such an action that rationalizes extra damage and/or extra heightened accuracy. Third, due to its split-second nature, there needs to be an accuracy penalty. This will cause it to hit less, and when it does--much more likely be a graze. That is far more representative of the nature of the action. Finally, having disengagement incur its own recovery would do much to keep it under control. At the worst, I see this kind of disengagement attack as much less evil than the alternatives--even its absence.

@ Nipsen Keep in mind that disengagement attacks currently posses an accuracy bonus, damage bonus, operate without a recovery time, and ignore weapon reach. Essentially, engagement attacks function entirely outside of all normal combat mechanisms. If disengagement attacks were to respect weapon reach, possess a recovery time, have their damage bonus removed, and an accuracy penalty (more reasonable) than a bonus, do you really think disengagement would be broken or abusive?

Agreed a thousand times over. Engagement can be renovated and made ideal in just a few simple bullet points. Fatalistic hyperbole not required.

Hmm... maybe we had a TWO-eighty-six? I can't remember now. We got a new computer when I was about 7. The first one's still sitting at my parents' house somewhere, though. Probly still works, too. I actually had to turn Turbo off on a few games, because it just made them run too fast. That was my reaction to Prince of Persia, also. "My goodness! SUCH REALISTIC SWORDFIGHTING!" Haha. He is correct. The x386 was 33mhz. I had one, a Hewlett Packard--turbo button and all. Several years later I used a tutorial online I found to turn it into a drink mixing robot. Not the most statutorily appropriate skill building exercise, but educational none-the-less!

Some developers have made the claim that it is possible, but will be exceedingly difficult. After playing the beta, I disagree entirely. Even with beta release versions that were considered easy, no class has sufficient tools to do anything on their own. They are all a fraction of a whole, and deliberately made so that they cannot operate independently. The frequency and size of the encounters are also going to make soloing prohibitive as well. One may be able to stealth their way through much of the game, but it has already been stated that combat will not be avoidable in many scenarios--particularly with regard to plot significant portions. Never say never, but I imagine that it will take an extreme amount of glaring, buggy, game-breaking exploits to solo PoE.

Absolutely correct. Well said. For anyone using spells and abilities offensively, maximizing accuracy is of utmost importance. The loss incurred by grazing will more significantly effect damage than any other statistic, even when a hit of any kind is assured. Considering that heightened accuracy also expands your critical range while minimizing your graze range, there is no question about it being the most valuable for abilities. My question is, when is DR applied? Before DT, after, or irrespective?

I need no instruction on the IE games. My mod list for the Baldur's Gate series alone quadruples the installation size and requires hours to install even on modern machines. I have mastered every aspect of the IE games, please do not condescend. Formations were superfluous in the IE games because they were porous. Outside of doorways and poor path-finding, any enemy could waltz through anywhere. Other than a spell, there were no mechanisms to shield weaker characters. Most enemies did not have any sort of ranged attack nor spell casting ability that could defend against kiting. These were deficiencies of those games, not merely from a player perspective, but a designer perspective. Engagement is an attempt to resolve these issues. It can work. It is presently less than desirable for reasons above, which you ignore. That does not mean that it has no place or cannot provide tactical value in a true RTwP environment. Keeping engagement, but handling its existing range, accuracy, damage, and recovery modifiers in well....the completely opposite fashion would make this mechanic shine. At this point, I'm just going to take Captain Shrek's advice and "exit stage left". I've said all I can on this subject.

Agreed. When I kickstarted, I wasn't aware that Mr. Sawyer loves 4th Edition D&D (See: MMO tropes). I also wasn't aware he hated spell casting. I get a strong vibe that the game he wanted to create is Age of Decadence. I was gritting my teeth the entire kickstarter once they began rolling out classes beyond the "core four". To me, almost every mechanic and design problem is attributable to the class concepts. I still have hope that these concepts can be overcome, but the taste of MMO is impossible to ignore. I doubt Josh will like AoD. AoD is hard. And not hard as in clumsy. It requires dedicated builds to win and has no soft checks. There are failure states which can make your character completely feel useless forcing you to start over. Also, it is extremely judgemental. It will openly criticize you for making silly character assessments of enemy 'talkers'. And you know what? It is amazing fun. Probably, no, scratch that, the best game I ever played. Truly? I've had my eye on it for some time, but have acquired, erm....cold feet towards developing products. What you say encourages me to perhaps take the chance.

I feel like this game is so close to being there. It's dancing on the edge of some really great things, but the implementation for so many aspects is just.....convoluted and questionable. Immediately from the beginning you're dealing with not-D&D names for everything. From there is nose-dives into the obtuse. The greatest offender is the class concepts. Choose an issue, and I can probably root it down to the class design. Unfortunately, that's one of the things least likely to change. *sigh*

We had no reason to suspect that they would modify attributes either. Did their initial problems mean that attributes should be struck from the game? See my above post.

This is devolving into sophistry. See: Exalted. Tactical combat is one of the three major design goals of this game. Opinions on the implementation of that goal vary. Movement: Wild Sprint, Escape, Grimiore Slam, Flagellant's Path, Stalker's Link, Master's Call, Rooting Pain, etcetera. Dissatisfaction with implementation is an entirely different matter than design intentions. IE Games: Superfluous party formations. Inability to screen/defend another character. Kiting disproportionately favored. The inability of warriors to impede attackers or guard other party members was almost non-existent in the IE games. This was a problem. It was a common complaint. It was a deficiency of the AD&D rule set and its adaption to the digital format. Kiting was also a significant dilemma, as there were exceedingly few mechanisms for most enemies to combat it. Even with vastly improved AI through mods like Sword Coast Strategems, formation was superfluous and kiting was still extraordinarily advantageous. Enter Engagement. Is the implementation perfect? No! Does it resolve very legitimate problems with IE combat? Conceptually it does, but the implementation (again) is to be desired. Should babies be discarded with dirty bath water? That's why I have several times mentioned several tweaks which can resolve the current engagement system's offenses. Current Engagement Problems Radii is irrespective of weapon range......I concede that point. I took a look at the official wiki to find answers, and I did. It's pointless and illogical. I gave them more credit than was deserved evidently. I apologize for that. Accuracy bonus to engagement attacks. Damage bonus to engagement attacks. No recovery time for disengagement attacks. Allow recovery while moving. (I understand that's not explicitly an engagement mechanic, but it is of the same vein.) Those points are easily solvable. Just do the very opposite--restrict it to weapon reach, input an accuracy penalty, remove the damage bonus, give the disengagement attack a normal recovery, and allow recovery while moving. There needs to be a mechanic to automatically address moving around combatants. It was a problem in the IE games, and no amount of AI could address it. Engagement, with modifications, can. Engagement Improvements Disengagement attacks respect weapon reach. Disengagement attacks are made at an accuracy penalty. No damage bonus to disengagement attacks. Disengagement attacks suffer normal recovery. Recovery may occur while simultaneously moving. To those whom hate engagement, if those changes were made, would you find the mechanic agreeable? PS: The avatar change will remain for the month of November. Enjoy it.

Right, the intention was to create a mechanism where enemies could not freely waltz around warriors. That's all this statement provides. This is known. In a game where tactics are exalted (one of the three Pillars), why would they deliberately toss out or ignore weapon reach for a mechanic about tactical positioning? Your citation and following argument are not persuasive that engagement is intended to function outside of weapon reach. Every mechanic, desirable or otherwise, suggests that positioning is a significant factor in PoE combat. The questionable choice to have moment delay cool-downs, engagement itself, various class abilities circumventing engagement, weapon reach. These are all things were positioning is mechanically significant. To deliberately ignore weapon reach in a mechanic purposefully created to create tactical movement considerations would be beyond bizarre.

Agreed. When I kickstarted, I wasn't aware that Mr. Sawyer loves 4th Edition D&D (See: MMO tropes). I also wasn't aware he hated spell casting. I get a strong vibe that the game he wanted to create is Age of Decadence. I was gritting my teeth the entire kickstarter once they began rolling out classes beyond the "core four". To me, almost every mechanic and design problem is attributable to the class concepts. I still have hope that these concepts can be overcome, but the taste of MMO is impossible to ignore.

Yes, yes, lovely drawing. Where's the direct quotation with a link that engagement is deliberately designed to ignore weapon reach? I don't want to be wrong in this, true. Not for the sake of ego, but for the sake of this game. Engagement deliberately allowing characters to strike beyond weapon reach is ridiculous. Citation first please. Smug gloating later.

What I meant by the second bullet, was that engagement attacks should have an accuracy penalty to increase the probability of a miss or graze, rather than hit normally. If it's a split-second opportunist action, then it's not likely to be accurate. I fenced for three years, practiced Kendo for one, and Aikido for six years when I lived in Japan. It is entirely possible to impede the movement of multiple attackers, and even strike one that may be seeking to get past you. If they aren't guarded while moving around me when in striking distance, they will most certainly be hit. That would cause me some defensive problems, but it can be done. Even in a 2v1, if I don't want you walking past me, you're not going to without paying for in some form. At the very least, absent a wide berth--you will be impeded. That degree of simulation isn't possible in a game like this, but there does need to be some incorporated mechanism where a warrior can defend and ward off attackers. I think the concept of engagement satisfies that. If it needs to be simulationist to succeed, than so be it. There will invariably be short-comings, but I believe that overall they can be mitigated and provide tactical enrichment to PoE.

If engagement is designed to work independent of weapon reach, then I will most certainly, if woefully, eat crow. That would be such an absurd design, that I find it almost inconceivable. The entire concept of engagement is simulationist. To ignore weapon reach deliberately would be nonsensical. I would need some sort of direct quotation with a link to believe that. I truly hope that you are wrong. To me, engagement only needs tweaked in the following manners: The actual engagement attack itself incurs a normal recovery time. Engagement attack accuracy is pressured towards grazing. Engagement attacks have an enhanced interruption chance. Again, hope you're wrong about engagement deliberately ignoring weapon reach. If that's deliberate, then engagement needs to go. Otherwise, I think engagement is desirable feature.

So what you've demonstrated here is that the strike-zone for engagement attacks is entirely incorrect, as it does not reflect the weapon reach. This is indicative of engagement not working as intended, rather than being a poor mechanic. There is no reason to suspect that a developer with a fetish for medieval combat would want weapons ignoring their reach parameters. To use that as evidence of a design problem rather than a bug is beyond disingenuous, it's false. Otherwise, it's just two skirmishers out-maneuvering a common guard. Engagement provides the reasonable penalty for ignoring the warrior at your flank, and allowing warriors to actually guard. It was a problem in the IE games that enemies could casually waltz by your warriors. The only mechanism for blocking was to obstruct the AI's very poor path-finding. Engagement remedies those deficiencies. I ask you a third time. When and how would that guard applied, "slowing movement speed, stuns, disables..." to meaningfully change the outcome of this fight?

HAHAHAHAH YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING - the attacks are free of recovery time and rinse-repeat abusable, but I am not really surprised you think that based on the way you assign attributes to characters. Sorry but I think you'll be in the minority there. By the way the use of a Pike and a Quarterstaff are not related to the range that those free attacks occured. I could have had a Dagger equipped and that would have been the range that the attacks triggered. Engagement is independent of weapon reach. Engagement is independent of weapon reach? Can you cite this? That would be an odd implementation--glaring actually. I haven't been able to observe one way or the other. Can you reference this? I'd be appreciative. I don't see how your demonstration exhibited abuse though. You effectively kited that guard. In a 2:1 match-up, there is little an out-numbered melee opponent can do against skirmish tactics from comparable enemies. Each warrior not being pursued took advantage of the guard's exposure, harrying it with both damage and by impeding it. I don't know what kind of alternative you conceive for this scenario. You mention "slowing movement speed, stuns, disables...", but the guard only ever had one opportunity to strike BB fighter. How exactly would the guard have employed any sort of ability against your characters? Engagement attacks serves to provide a penalty for casually waltzing around a combatant while simultaneously allowing warriors to impede enemy movement. Both of those are functioning. The attack has to be "free", because if it was subject to recovery, then engagement attacks would never execute due to some other action's cool-down. The only changes I would make to engagement, would be so that the engagement attacks still ignore recovery from other actions, but suffer recovery time from the engagement attack itself like any normal attack. I would also have the interrupt probability enhanced, whilst accuracy was downward pressured towards grazing.

I agree that Accuracy is the most important statistic. I don't really look at it from the point of view that I need to gain an extra 50% damage though. To me is critical to surmount the -100% to -50% miss/graze penalty. DR + DT + Miss + Grazing really makes for ineffective damage. Dexterity is a good fit for the Cipher, because they have to divide their actions between two different states. The faster they attack, the more soul energy they gain. The more soul energy they gain, the more spells they can cast. The faster they execute and recover from casting, the faster they may return to leeching soul energy. Considering that any given spell will consume about 25% to 50% of their maximum soul energy, doing all of these actions even 16% faster makes a difference. Dexterity also really helps when using firearms and polearms. I made an Elven Rogue focused in using pikes to flank and interrupt, and it was a terror. It was attacking faster than any enemy, and between its high accuracy & high damage, I would say that greater than 2/3 of her attacks resulted in an interrupt.

What would you expect to happen as an alternative? Your character's attacks came from beyond that guard's reach, naturally it is going to pursue. Being outnumbered 2:1, your other warrior both flanks him with attacks and even slows him slightly. What part of this is inappropriate? If that guard had stopped and fought your second warrior after being struck...that scenario would be just as easily taken advantage of when you outnumber the enemy 2:1. I don't agree that this is an example of engagement being broken. To me it felt like a demonstration of effective skirmish tactics. Your use of spears was deliberate, as they were a necessary component of this demonstration. That's the point of a reach weapon, and that's why they make such great skirmishing weapons. Had you been using daggers, this scenario would have been quite a bit different. I can't find anything wrong with the tactics and outcome of this video.

I did. Makes classes pretty much useless. Fighters with Res and Dex max with might added practically made them fodder. Wizards with per and Dex maxed made them weakish wannabe nukers etc. I'm guessing by "weakish" you are regarding hit points? Perception is the single most important stat to the Wizard, as their spells are utterly dependent on accuracy. If your wizard is getting hit, you are doing it wrong. Also, are you actually using Wizard for damaging spells? What I was asking about was your regard of the Perception attribute. I didn't understand the meaning of your comment has to how Perception contributes to a wizard being "weakish". That's what I was inquiring about, if poorly.

I did. Makes classes pretty much useless. Fighters with Res and Dex max with might added practically made them fodder. Wizards with per and Dex maxed made them weakish wannabe nukers etc. I'm guessing by "weakish" you are regarding hit points? Perception is the single most important stat to the Wizard, as their spells are utterly dependent on accuracy.