Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'casting'.
DreamWayfarer posted a question in Pillars of Eternity: Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)I noticed that often when I order a party member to cast a spell from a scroll during a big fight, said party member more often than not starts casting but stops before the casting is finished. Not only that, but the combat log says that the party member used the ability yet the scroll is unused and the spell is uncast. Scrolls of paralysis seem to be the exception, interestingly enough.
icer22x posted a question in Pillars of Eternity: Technical Support (Spoiler Warning!)I can't find this issue on the forums - probably because I am not searching for the right tags. Anyway, I am playing a Priest, and I never knew there was audio for spells casting until hours into the game when I heard it for the first time, although it is quickly cut short. I've never heard it again. It's always cut off by something else or not even started again. The wizard in my party also makes no audio sound when casting. Has anyone else experienced this issue? Any workarounds? Thanks!
In the last few discissions I noticed an irritatinbly high number of people who think that mages, once low on spells, are a total dead weight. Time to disprove such flawed notions. Lets for example take your average D&D spellcaster. Are spells his main thing? Yes. But that isn't the only thing he can do. The thing holding mack mages the most is their low amount of HP* and poeple not using them to their full potential *something I have campaigning for from day 1 is that health is determined by CON alone and class has no bearing on it. This would make mages far more survivable in combat as tehy could have as much HP as a fighter. One thing to decide when building a character (of any class) is what approach to take. - focus on maximizing it's strengths - focus on minimizing weakneses - balanced approach Now, msot peoepl I know go for the first. Got a fighter? All the equipment and skilsl will be there to make him even stronger and more durable! Got a mage? All equipment and skills/feats go to makeing him a stronger spellcaster. That is a valid aproach, but overspecialization is overrated. It works wonderfull as long as everything is going according to plan. But if it doesn't, if you loose that super-specialized tank - suddenly there's total chaos. *** "A great man once said that Specialization is for insects, Mr. Riley. I believed it at the time. I always thought that any human being, man or woman, should be able to do a solid day's work at any task you set them to. Hunt a buck or catch a fish, hammer a nail, build a fire, change the dressing on a wound — I always believed that you had to be ready to do anything to survive." *** Me? I prefer a more balanced approach. You loose a bit on the offensive side, but gain survivabiltiy and flexibility. I'm gonna give a few example from D&D that work. ToEE, Elven sorcerres Aquariliyane. Being an elf, she starts with weapon proficiency: longsword and has a dex bonus. So I give her 1 lvl of fighter and take Weapon Speacilization and Weapon Finesse (use DEX bonus for to-hit insted of STR). With spells like Blur and Mage Armor (this spell lasts the whole day) her AC is quite impressive (especially if you increase DEX even more or use bbracers of defense). Add Fire Shild, Gaseous form or similar if necessary, but for now let's discount spells, since we are talking about a depleted mage scenario (mage armor still applies tough). She was quite competent in combat. Enough so that she could take on lesser enemies by herself. Then we have Avernus. A human wizzard. He was worse in mele than her, but that's OK, because he had a different role to play. He had an enchanted repeating crossbow (in which he was given proficiency). With gloves of dexterity he was accurate enough with it (and it helped some of his tough spells and AC too). Most of all he was busy making scrolls and wands. When he was out of spells, he was far from useless. I used both of them in ToEE extensively, not backtracting or resting untill my entire party was tired. I cleared enitre dungeon levels without spells and wihout dying. *** What a mage can do even without spells: - make and use items like wands and scrolls (plenty of usefull wands are cheap enough to make and start with 20 charges). They might cost gold and EXP, but EXP can be gained back fast enough (especailly since those lagging behind the group get more) - ranged support - mele distraction/support Note that with combat manouvers being availlbe to every class, even a mage can get behind an enemy and attampt to trip him, or charge and knock him over. A character doesn't have to have to deal a huge amount of DPS to be usefull. A completely average character can turn the tide of battle with proper application.
Please forgive the wall of text. I am a big fan of considering what went before. So the arguments about Vancian magic versus mana-based systems (and the completely understandable passion it generates) got me thinking. And, because I find myself less moved about it than some other folks, I thought that maybe I could add something new to the debate by casting my mind back to other RPGs from the Days of Yore. Of course, it should go without saying that pen and paper systems mechanically might not fit into a CRPG. But thematically... sure. Why not? Magic has always been divided into a giddying variety of types: divine versus arcane, sorcerer versus mage, cantrip versus spell, innate powa versus learnt, scroll versus memorized, generalised mage versus specialist... then you get funky stuff like bards or rangers or paladins all of whom access magic in the form of innate, modal, passive and spell-casting forms. Accessing magic is similarly broad, i.e. via using a wand, magic item or having a stack of five fire-and-forget offensive spells (all viable and powerful additions for a spellcaster). This is before we consider 3E style feats and meta-magic. Therefore pen and paper systems have always allowed spellcasters a broad range of tactics and methods to access magic. Too many perhaps, showcasing the piecemeal evolution of the hobby. So as I watch the debate unfold, it strikes me that the combatants (and I say this with respect) have perhaps not done a three-sixty and fully considered the diversity of What Went Before (WWB). Sorcerers, for example are as near-as-dammit using a mana system, the closest you'll get in an IE game. Sorcerers, by the way, are my favourite arcane spellcasting class. I often bang on about RuneQuest here, but please hear me out (read me out? Whatever). The magic there was (a) divided into two and (b) specifically rooted into the setting. There was Battle Magic and Rune Magic. Battle magic was predicated on the idea that magic was something anybody could access (classless system) if taught. It used a statistic, POWER, using a mana-type metric (boosted by items that one could store POWER in). Battle Magic consisted of buffs, minor healing and stuff. Rune Magic was the preserve of advanced cult members and was like powerful arcane magic in D&D. You could do all sorts of funky stuff with it. But the spell-list was relatively small compared to D&D but all the spells were useful. All the spells were impactive. All of the spells were fun. It was a case study in the Less Is More approach to game design. It combined hardcore, old school flavour with what would now be considered to be a mana-system, but was managed in a way that made sense --- lose POWER by casting spells and your character became physically weaker. The decision to cast spells was one made carefully. Of course, Rune Magic casters had all sorts of tricks up their sleeves to mitigate this, and this was also part of the fun. So, my conclusions 1. Old-skool Vancian magic evolved with the game to the point where there were so many options it began to undermine the whole fire-and-forget principle, creating bulky mechanics to underpin the innate clunkiness of design (meta-magic, prestige classes etc) 2. Sorcerers are almost there in terms of aping the mana model, and might be a model worth studying for this project 3. Other properly granular old-skool systems, like RuneQuest, managed to create impactive, fun, immersive magic systems using a mana-based model 4. Therefore it seems odd that the debate around a mechanic so potentially nuanced can boil down to Vancian versus Mana when there is obviously so much room to exploit in the natural gap between the two. Many thanks if you finished to read my post, and if only a handful of people Google 1st Edition Gloranthan RuneQuest after this then I'll be a happy man. Love & Peace