Why did obsidian make the changes to the casting and rest system?

[cokane]

The difference is that in POE1 you often had to be careful what you cast because you had limited uses between rests and Camping Supplies were limited. In POE2 you can actually play like a real Wizard should, casting best spells every battle.

Ah yes, playing every battle exactly the same for a game that could potentially last 100 hours, that sounds super fun.

[cokane]

The Vancian Casting is great on Tabletop, but usually pretty crappy in videos games. In the infinity engine games, NWN, and NWN2, you basically spam rest and go to the next encounter with all your goodies anyways. That is the whole reason camping supplies existed in PoE, to stop rest spam. Ciphers were so damn fun and powerful, because you could just keep chucking spells, while a wizard or priest would throw a spell or two, then auto-attack.

 

The history of video games and their relative rankings on "best of" list would disagree!

[Rheios]

The Vancian Casting is great on Tabletop, but usually pretty crappy in videos games. In the infinity engine games, NWN, and NWN2, you basically spam rest and go to the next encounter with all your goodies anyways. That is the whole reason camping supplies existed in PoE, to stop rest spam. Ciphers were so damn fun and powerful, because you could just keep chucking spells, while a wizard or priest would throw a spell or two, then auto-attack.

 

I tend to disagree, primarily because there's usually no need to 5 minute workday it. I had more fun balancing my fighters hp vs the amount of spells used. If I can get them to run out at the same time, before a rest, its kindof great. No lost resources vs successes gained.

 

Sure you *can* abuse the resting in those games but people used to do that in 3.5 too and the solution was simple - don't. Your character's wouldn't take a nap every other hour. You wouldn't. Why play the game like you would? It is an rpg after all. And if you think it makes the game boring? Why would you keep doing it?

 

And I actually like the wizard/priest having to use their instruments. As it stands in POE2 there's almost never reason to not be casting spells and it makes it feel like you're wasting resources if you spend any time using the cool unique weapons, like the dagger you can get for your priest, or the Whale of a Wand. The old way gave you a reason to do both and it was up to you to maintain the balance. Not to mention the cool POE1 instruments like the (rod I believe) that would charm enemies. To clarify I do use those items anyway and just forgo the spells often enough but you can tell the difference in the effect you're having and its a bit disappointing sometimes.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Rheios

[AFA]

 

The Vancian Casting is great on Tabletop, but usually pretty crappy in videos games. In the infinity engine games, NWN, and NWN2, you basically spam rest and go to the next encounter with all your goodies anyways. That is the whole reason camping supplies existed in PoE, to stop rest spam. Ciphers were so damn fun and powerful, because you could just keep chucking spells, while a wizard or priest would throw a spell or two, then auto-attack.

 

The history of video games and their relative rankings on "best of" list would disagree!

 

 

Great games, sure, but the Vancian aspect is made pretty much moot thanks to resting at-will. Then it is pretty much just having the right spells prepared for a single fight.

[AFA]

 

The Vancian Casting is great on Tabletop, but usually pretty crappy in videos games. In the infinity engine games, NWN, and NWN2, you basically spam rest and go to the next encounter with all your goodies anyways. That is the whole reason camping supplies existed in PoE, to stop rest spam. Ciphers were so damn fun and powerful, because you could just keep chucking spells, while a wizard or priest would throw a spell or two, then auto-attack.

 

And I actually like the wizard/priest having to use their instruments. As it stands in POE2 there's almost never reason to not be casting spells and it makes it feel like you're wasting resources if you spend any time using the cool unique weapons, like the dagger you can get for your priest, or the Whale of a Wand. The old way gave you a reason to do both and it was up to you to maintain the balance. Not to mention the cool POE1 instruments like the (rod I believe) that would charm enemies. To clarify I do use those items anyway and just forgo the spells often enough but you can tell the difference in the effect you're having and its a bit disappointing sometimes.

 

 

That soulbound Rod was glorious, and was a boon for low level wizards. Shame that wasn't carried over like the swords were

[algroth]

 

The Vancian Casting is great on Tabletop, but usually pretty crappy in videos games. In the infinity engine games, NWN, and NWN2, you basically spam rest and go to the next encounter with all your goodies anyways. That is the whole reason camping supplies existed in PoE, to stop rest spam. Ciphers were so damn fun and powerful, because you could just keep chucking spells, while a wizard or priest would throw a spell or two, then auto-attack.

 

The history of video games and their relative rankings on "best of" list would disagree!

 

 

I reckon Planescape: Torment being likened to the Citizen Kane of RPGs means its combat is a thing to emulate, right?

[cokane]

 

 

The Vancian Casting is great on Tabletop, but usually pretty crappy in videos games. In the infinity engine games, NWN, and NWN2, you basically spam rest and go to the next encounter with all your goodies anyways. That is the whole reason camping supplies existed in PoE, to stop rest spam. Ciphers were so damn fun and powerful, because you could just keep chucking spells, while a wizard or priest would throw a spell or two, then auto-attack.

 

The history of video games and their relative rankings on "best of" list would disagree!

 

 

Great games, sure, but the Vancian aspect is made pretty much moot thanks to resting at-will. Then it is pretty much just having the right spells prepared for a single fight.

 

This isn't true. Again there's a history here of games from Pool of Radiance to Pillars of Eternity, with some best of all time titles in the middle there. Insisting that a game mechanic doesn't work in light of this evidence to simply admit you don't care about evidence.

[cokane]

 

I reckon Planescape: Torment being likened to the Citizen Kane of RPGs means its combat is a thing to emulate, right?

 

 

Better combat than Deadfire.

[algroth]

 

 

 

The Vancian Casting is great on Tabletop, but usually pretty crappy in videos games. In the infinity engine games, NWN, and NWN2, you basically spam rest and go to the next encounter with all your goodies anyways. That is the whole reason camping supplies existed in PoE, to stop rest spam. Ciphers were so damn fun and powerful, because you could just keep chucking spells, while a wizard or priest would throw a spell or two, then auto-attack.

 

The history of video games and their relative rankings on "best of" list would disagree!

 

 

Great games, sure, but the Vancian aspect is made pretty much moot thanks to resting at-will. Then it is pretty much just having the right spells prepared for a single fight.

 

This isn't true. Again there's a history here of games from Pool of Radiance to Pillars of Eternity, with some best of all time titles in the middle there. Insisting that a game mechanic doesn't work in light of this evidence to simply admit you don't care about evidence.

 

You're incorrectly assuming that vancian casting is the aspect that places these games in the list and not many other more important elements such as the story, writing, development of setting, other aspects of combat, significance within the context of their release and so on. Again, Planescape: Torment is usually seen as one of the very finest RPGs of all time, yet people who see it thus don't do so for its combat whatsoever. Heck, I rarely see Baldur's Gate or most other D&D games spoken of positively when it comes to combat specifically beyond the very closed niche of D&D geekdom.

[algroth]

 

 

I reckon Planescape: Torment being likened to the Citizen Kane of RPGs means its combat is a thing to emulate, right?

 

 

Better combat than Deadfire.

 

 

Those rose-tinted glasses are looking mighty fetching on you.

[Manveru123]

 

The difference is that in POE1 you often had to be careful what you cast because you had limited uses between rests and Camping Supplies were limited. In POE2 you can actually play like a real Wizard should, casting best spells every battle.

Ah yes, playing every battle exactly the same for a game that could potentially last 100 hours, that sounds super fun.

 

Watching your group and the enemies auto attack each other to death because you don't want to waste spell casts was worse.

[cokane]

 

 

 

 

The Vancian Casting is great on Tabletop, but usually pretty crappy in videos games. In the infinity engine games, NWN, and NWN2, you basically spam rest and go to the next encounter with all your goodies anyways. That is the whole reason camping supplies existed in PoE, to stop rest spam. Ciphers were so damn fun and powerful, because you could just keep chucking spells, while a wizard or priest would throw a spell or two, then auto-attack.

 

The history of video games and their relative rankings on "best of" list would disagree!

 

 

Great games, sure, but the Vancian aspect is made pretty much moot thanks to resting at-will. Then it is pretty much just having the right spells prepared for a single fight.

 

This isn't true. Again there's a history here of games from Pool of Radiance to Pillars of Eternity, with some best of all time titles in the middle there. Insisting that a game mechanic doesn't work in light of this evidence to simply admit you don't care about evidence.

 

You're incorrectly assuming that vancian casting is the aspect that places these games in the list and not many other more important elements such as the story, writing, development of setting, other aspects of combat, significance within the context of their release and so on. Again, Planescape: Torment is usually seen as one of the very finest RPGs of all time, yet people who see it thus don't do so for its combat whatsoever. Heck, I rarely see Baldur's Gate or most other D&D games spoken of positively when it comes to combat specifically beyond the very closed niche of D&D geekdom.

 

 

That's not what I said.

 

Again, read that entire quoted text. The *original* claim is that Vancian casting is "usually pretty crappy in video games". Seems odd to suggest that given the commercial, critical, and "best of all time" accolades many of these games have received. And plenty of people *have* praised the combat systems of the Gold Box games, BG, and Icewind Dale. In fact, most of the replay value of the BG games is specifically because of the depth of its combat system -- as well as the wide difference of playing as a caster vs a fighter.

[algroth]

 

 

 

 

 

The Vancian Casting is great on Tabletop, but usually pretty crappy in videos games. In the infinity engine games, NWN, and NWN2, you basically spam rest and go to the next encounter with all your goodies anyways. That is the whole reason camping supplies existed in PoE, to stop rest spam. Ciphers were so damn fun and powerful, because you could just keep chucking spells, while a wizard or priest would throw a spell or two, then auto-attack.

 

The history of video games and their relative rankings on "best of" list would disagree!

 

 

Great games, sure, but the Vancian aspect is made pretty much moot thanks to resting at-will. Then it is pretty much just having the right spells prepared for a single fight.

 

This isn't true. Again there's a history here of games from Pool of Radiance to Pillars of Eternity, with some best of all time titles in the middle there. Insisting that a game mechanic doesn't work in light of this evidence to simply admit you don't care about evidence.

 

You're incorrectly assuming that vancian casting is the aspect that places these games in the list and not many other more important elements such as the story, writing, development of setting, other aspects of combat, significance within the context of their release and so on. Again, Planescape: Torment is usually seen as one of the very finest RPGs of all time, yet people who see it thus don't do so for its combat whatsoever. Heck, I rarely see Baldur's Gate or most other D&D games spoken of positively when it comes to combat specifically beyond the very closed niche of D&D geekdom.

 

 

That's not what I said.

 

Again, read that entire quoted text. The *original* claim is that Vancian casting is "usually pretty crappy in video games". Seems odd to suggest that given the commercial, critical, and "best of all time" accolades many of these games have received. And plenty of people *have* praised the combat systems of the Gold Box games, BG, and Icewind Dale. In fact, most of the replay value of the BG games is specifically because of the depth of its combat system -- as well as the wide difference of playing as a caster vs a fighter.

 

 

I have read what they said and what you quoted, and have responded to the fallacy you used as a response. You assume that vancian casting has anything to do with these games being called the "best of all time" when it's only a very minor aspect about them that is, for most people who enjoy the games, pretty trivial when it comes to deciding their overall opinion of them. You may as well say a certain black car that is slower than those other red cars would be faster if it were painted red. I have never heard these games praised because of their use of vancian casting or because they applied it. Great as these games may be, they may still be using the system incorrectly - and I'd agree and have touched on the subject several times before whenever this matter was brought up. Also I would suggest you look past the insular forums like D&D/Obsidian/Codex and see what the opinion beyond the tight niche actually is about them. Their combat is really not all that greatly seen and there's a reason why we've progressively moved away from that style of play, even when using these games as a blueprint.

Edited July 19, 2018 by algroth

[AFA]

 

 

 

 

 

The Vancian Casting is great on Tabletop, but usually pretty crappy in videos games. In the infinity engine games, NWN, and NWN2, you basically spam rest and go to the next encounter with all your goodies anyways. That is the whole reason camping supplies existed in PoE, to stop rest spam. Ciphers were so damn fun and powerful, because you could just keep chucking spells, while a wizard or priest would throw a spell or two, then auto-attack.

 

The history of video games and their relative rankings on "best of" list would disagree!

 

 

Great games, sure, but the Vancian aspect is made pretty much moot thanks to resting at-will. Then it is pretty much just having the right spells prepared for a single fight.

 

This isn't true. Again there's a history here of games from Pool of Radiance to Pillars of Eternity, with some best of all time titles in the middle there. Insisting that a game mechanic doesn't work in light of this evidence to simply admit you don't care about evidence.

 

You're incorrectly assuming that vancian casting is the aspect that places these games in the list and not many other more important elements such as the story, writing, development of setting, other aspects of combat, significance within the context of their release and so on. Again, Planescape: Torment is usually seen as one of the very finest RPGs of all time, yet people who see it thus don't do so for its combat whatsoever. Heck, I rarely see Baldur's Gate or most other D&D games spoken of positively when it comes to combat specifically beyond the very closed niche of D&D geekdom.

 

 

That's not what I said.

 

Again, read that entire quoted text. The *original* claim is that Vancian casting is "usually pretty crappy in video games". Seems odd to suggest that given the commercial, critical, and "best of all time" accolades many of these games have received. And plenty of people *have* praised the combat systems of the Gold Box games, BG, and Icewind Dale. In fact, most of the replay value of the BG games is specifically because of the depth of its combat system -- as well as the wide difference of playing as a caster vs a fighter.

 

 

What depth does BG have in the combat system? BG1 is cast Sleep and murder everything. That wins 90% of the fights, spam summons for the rest. BG2, you just spam buff spells to make your party practically immortal, then just crush everything with your OP weapons. Maybe you cast Breach or some debuffs if you run into a wizard or dragon. Spam Animate Dead for everything else

[Moriendor]

I like the changes. I'm not Nostradamus so I did have no way of knowing when vendors in the first game would run out of camping supplies. You usually also could not know in advance how large a dungeon/area is and what encounters lie ahead. Do you fire some of your best spells now or save them up for later etc.?

 

So, in better-safe-than-sorry fashion I often times traveled to an inn or Caed Nua (a loading screen is a loading screen so there was no real reason to go to the "nearest" inn) when in need of resting which resulted in staring at a LOT of boring loading screens.

Run back to dungeon/area exit (sometimes with loading screens if you were on a lower level) - overland loading screen - inn/Caed Nua loading screen - In case of Caed Nua internal area loading screens (ground floor + second floor) - rest (finally!) - inn/Caed Nua area loading screen - overland area loading screen - dungeon/area loading screen - run back to where you left off - resume the "adventure". Ugh.

 

I'm definitely glad that's over and I always considered it a design weakness that Obsidian tried to mimic D&D rules so closely for the first game. In Deadfire we can finally explore more uninterrupted and not deal with tedious loading screens all the time. Of course, the encounters should be balanced (i.e. made harder) to accommodate the party's increased ability usage potential.

Obsidian obviously dropped the ball on this with the way too easy release version but they are in the process of making adjustments so I think it's all good. I'll dive back in once all DLCs and patches are out and I hope it will be tuned really well then.

[Rheios]

 Also I would suggest you look past the insular forums like D&D/Obsidian/Codex and see what the opinion beyond the tight niche actually is about them. Their combat is really not all that greatly seen and there's a reason why we've progressively moved away from that style of play, even when using these games as a blueprint.

 

 

 

  

See, I was actually, if not agreeing, thinking you were making a good argument until this point.  While its probably fine to go get a more varied perspective, just for flexibility's sake, I'd hardly say that those people are any more arbiters of what constitutes 'good' or 'progress' than those of us who like Vancian are. And I'd hardly call us a niche as if its a small view - there's a reason Pathfinder's continuation of 3.X and older D&D tropes, including Vancian, made it so popular. (And the pseudo-vancian 5e has doesn't seem to be damaging either) The biggest departure even there was to allow more cantrips for casters who didn't want to use a weapon, and POE has wands, tome slam, and arcane blasts to simulate that concept. How people see the combat is pretty meaninglessly subject, just as the contrary view is, its just subjective.

 

That all being said, I can eat mechanics to an extent - if the lore can continue to support it - but change to lore and retconns really butters my bagel on the wrong side, thankfully that's not what we're discussing here.

 

As it stands Vancian's enjoyment as a tactical element could be predicated, at least somewhat, on something we haven't discussed yet - who uses the scripts for the NPCs? Because I don't. I micromanage everything with space pause and have since BG. I like the control and micromanagement and as such the greater levels of both choice and utility I found the Vancian spells gave me were preferable - including when and who to auto attack. For those that use the companion scripts for everything but spells they may find themselves watching more of the battle and so its more boring for them in the first game.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Rheios

[Rheios]

I like the changes. I'm not Nostradamus so I did have no way of knowing when vendors in the first game would run out of camping supplies. You usually also could not know in advance how large a dungeon/area is and what encounters lie ahead. Do you fire some of your best spells now or save them up for later etc.?

 

So, in better-safe-than-sorry fashion I often times traveled to an inn or Caed Nua (a loading screen is a loading screen so there was no real reason to go to the "nearest" inn) when in need of resting which resulted in staring at a LOT of boring loading screens.

Run back to dungeon/area exit (sometimes with loading screens if you were on a lower level) - overland loading screen - inn/Caed Nua loading screen - In case of Caed Nua internal area loading screens (ground floor + second floor) - rest (finally!) - inn/Caed Nua area loading screen - overland area loading screen - dungeon/area loading screen - run back to where you left off - resume the "adventure". Ugh.

 

I'm definitely glad that's over and I always considered it a design weakness that Obsidian tried to mimic D&D rules so closely for the first game. In Deadfire we can finally explore more uninterrupted and not deal with tedious loading screens all the time. Of course, the encounters should be balanced (i.e. made harder) to accommodate the party's increased ability usage potential.

Obsidian obviously dropped the ball on this with the way too easy release version but they are in the process of making adjustments so I think it's all good. I'll dive back in once all DLCs and patches are out and I hope it will be tuned really well then.

I mean, you inflicted that on yourself. Stuff like that was supposed to be the reason you didn't over-rest in POE (not that you didn't find supplies way too often imo), and if it didn't dissuade you than the opportunity cost wasn't as onerous as you were making it sound.  Half the fun of that system though *is* mitigating risk/reward, and driving forward into the unknown and gauge how much farther you can go. But some people *hate* that micromanagement aspect too and its fair if you do. I'm just sorry it was such a slog for you.  

 

As someone who enjoyed it though I found the uninterrupted exploring in Deadfire, while not *boring* per-say a little bit weird. Like I kept expecting fatigue but when I was half done with Nekataka before my first nap I realized I was probably approaching things from the wrong expectation. That being said I'm torn on the 'harder' thing, if only that more enemies/higher hp+more damaging enemies would make things harder but not necessarily more fun tactically to me? There's probably a lot of 'more versatile opponents' type approaches they could take as they better tune the game - since they can do what a 5 minute workday DM does and just assume perfect conditions before every fight - but as someone who remembers an Elder Evil atop a craggy mountain surrounded by strong winds and cliffs of such a DM being just a meaty time killer I can say its easy to get wrong too.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Rheios

[algroth]

 

 Also I would suggest you look past the insular forums like D&D/Obsidian/Codex and see what the opinion beyond the tight niche actually is about them. Their combat is really not all that greatly seen and there's a reason why we've progressively moved away from that style of play, even when using these games as a blueprint.

 

 

 

  

See, I was actually, if not agreeing, thinking you were making a good argument until this point.  While its probably fine to go get a more varied perspective, just for flexibility's sake, I'd hardly say that those people are any more arbiters of what constitutes 'good' or 'progress' than those of us who like Vancian are. And I'd hardly call us a niche as if its a small view - there's a reason Pathfinder's continuation of 3.X and older D&D tropes, including Vancian, made it so popular. The biggest departure even there was to allow more cantrips for casters who didn't want to use a weapon, and POE has wands, tome slam, and arcane blasts to simulate that concept. How people see the combat is pretty meaninglessly subject, just as the contrary view is, its just subjective.

 

Pathfinder is undoubtedly popular as a tabletop game and within the context of tabletop gaming I have absolutely no issues with the Vancian system as resting is frequently moderated by the DM and party engaging in the campaign. Far as I'm aware Pathfinder hasn't yet found tremendous success as a videogame franchise, and we'll have to look at the upcoming Kingmaker to see how that turns out. The issues I raise and have raised in the past regarding vancian casting is that people should recognize the difference between developing a system for a tabletop experience and a videogame one. And whilst I'm not looking at other forums as arbiters of "good" or "progress", I *am* looking at the many discussions in more neutral grounds about these to see what people love about them that keeps them so high on the all-time rankings and so on, and *combat* is almost always looked as something most of these games work *in spite of*. This is a frequent remark I've seen, and I was replying with this same about a remark that brought up the "general consensus" or "praise" lavished at these games. What I meant to say with all of this is that the praise heaped upon games that have tangentially used a vancian system is *not* an argument in favour of it or against change.

 

Also I should point out that I've seen cokane fall on similar fallacies time and time again in the past so I'm on a bit of a short fuse whenever I respond to him.

 

Personally, I'm more about discussing the actual merits and shortcomings of the vancian system when applied to practice. AFA's remark about the system being "pretty crappy" most likely referred to his opinion on its implementation and not on how it was generally perceived and so on. It's an opinion I would agree with too, because as far as I'm concerned the restrictions to resting in all of these games are so soft that it's remarkably easy to rest after every second encounter, making a vancian restriction absolutely inconsequential and mostly just an appendage-like nuissance that every so often will have you click a few buttons or backtrack a little more often than necessary. Camping supplies are never scarce enough to make you hold on to them a little longer, surprise mobs aren't dangerous enough (or unavoidable for that matter, considering the ability to save-scum) to be a real threat, time is rarely ever of the essence so as to force you to make your in-game hours count. With no mechanic to add a real risk or trade-off to replenishing those resources, the management of the same becomes pointless and thus there's no reason why said resources shouldn't automatically be replenished after a fight. Considering how Deadfire handles the resting system I don't see how vancian casting would have served any purpose for it or made much of a difference to the overall experience beyond maybe adding another reason to consume foods and visit inns.

 

 

  

As it stands Vancian's enjoyment as a tactical element could be predicated, at least somewhat, on something we haven't discussed yet - who uses the scripts for the NPCs? Because I don't. I micromanage everything with space pause and have since BG. I like the control and micromanagement and as such the greater levels of both choice and utility I found the Vancian spells gave me were preferable - including when and who to auto attack. For those that use the companion scripts for everything but spells they may find themselves watching more of the battle and so its more boring for them in the first game.

 

 

I always tend to micromanage too, and haven't even opened the AI editor in my Deadfire playthrough. I don't see what advantages a vancian system would have given me, if you care to expand.

Edited July 18, 2018 by algroth

[no1fanboy]

In POE1 it was incredibly easy to get camping supplies and rest. You could pretty much do this whenever you wanted. I never had a problem with it once.

 

So all these arguements that obsidian changed the rest system so casters could cast more is a complete load of absolute BS. The changes have actaully resulted me casting less with far less options and flexibility

[Moriendor]

 

I like the changes. I'm not Nostradamus so I did have no way of knowing when vendors in the first game would run out of camping supplies. You usually also could not know in advance how large a dungeon/area is and what encounters lie ahead. Do you fire some of your best spells now or save them up for later etc.?

 

So, in better-safe-than-sorry fashion I often times traveled to an inn or Caed Nua (a loading screen is a loading screen so there was no real reason to go to the "nearest" inn) when in need of resting which resulted in staring at a LOT of boring loading screens.

Run back to dungeon/area exit (sometimes with loading screens if you were on a lower level) - overland loading screen - inn/Caed Nua loading screen - In case of Caed Nua internal area loading screens (ground floor + second floor) - rest (finally!) - inn/Caed Nua area loading screen - overland area loading screen - dungeon/area loading screen - run back to where you left off - resume the "adventure". Ugh.

 

I'm definitely glad that's over and I always considered it a design weakness that Obsidian tried to mimic D&D rules so closely for the first game. In Deadfire we can finally explore more uninterrupted and not deal with tedious loading screens all the time. Of course, the encounters should be balanced (i.e. made harder) to accommodate the party's increased ability usage potential.

Obsidian obviously dropped the ball on this with the way too easy release version but they are in the process of making adjustments so I think it's all good. I'll dive back in once all DLCs and patches are out and I hope it will be tuned really well then.

I mean, you inflicted that on yourself.

 

Well, that's not the way I see it. They inflicted it upon me. Again: I'm not Nostradamus. In advance, I did not know how well balanced the game was, I did not know when vendors would run out of camping supplies, I did not know the size of most areas/dungeons or whether you would find camping supplies there at all (they were pretty rare IIRC), I did not know the encounter density or how many (mini-)boss fights there would be and last but not least I did not even know how much longer the whole game (+ WM) was going to be.

 

Yes, my play style might play a little role as well. I'm definitely a pack rat and save-for-later type. I always end games with billions of credits and thousands of items that I probably should have just, you know, used at some point .

 

However, just like the D&D games, I just found PoE resting mechanics kind of tedious and an unnecessary interruption of the flow of the gameplay.

Don't get me wrong... I finished and quite liked PoE in spite of these (to me) tedious mechanics but I've instantly enjoyed the ~50 hours I put into Deadfire so far a lot more because of the gameplay refinements.

IMO, they did a good job on Deadfire by getting rid of the tedium while still maintaining choices and challenge. And the good news is that it will only get better from here once they have gotten around to balancing the encounters more properly, especially for veteran/PotD difficulty.

[Tigranes]

If you always end games with billions of stuff because you feared to run out of them, then sure, your playthrough's going to be far more tedious than other people's. That really is on you, especially if this isn't your first RPG. Doesn't make you a bad person, you can certainly keep doing it if you like, but nobody inflicted it on you.

 

It all depends on where you're coming from. If you're more willing to roll with the punches and come out bruised, and to enjoy the challenge of thinking about the dungeon as a dungeon, then Deadfire kills a lot of that. If you hate the feeling of running out of something or not being at your optimal state, then Deadfire will be much better.

 

Or other cases, of course. There was that guy in page 1 that just wanted to go wow I cast big huge fireballs all the time! And that's certainly a popular opinion.

 

Often it feels like the solution is easy when you only think about your own playstyle, and what would cater to it best. The trouble is the wide variety of playstyles these niche games have tried to support.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Tigranes

[Loren Tyr]

I mean, you inflicted that on yourself. Stuff like that was supposed to be the reason you didn't over-rest in POE (not that you didn't find supplies way too often imo), and if it didn't dissuade you than the opportunity cost wasn't as onerous as you were making it sound.  Half the fun of that system though *is* mitigating risk/reward, and driving forward into the unknown and gauge how much farther you can go. But some people *hate* that micromanagement aspect too and its fair if you do. I'm just sorry it was such a slog for you.  

 

But how are you supposed to know what the 'right' amount of rest is? This is part of the problem with this kind of system, going into a dungeon (or whatever) you have no idea how deep it goes and how much resistance there is. Hence, it is very easy on the one hand to find yourself expending per rest resources too quickly (and having fights that are therefore easier than they were supposed to be), and having to run back to an inn for supplies and rest (though often not even that, since as you say there were a fair amount of camping supplies around to be found; so even without going back it would be relatively easy to overrest).

 

Or on the other hand (and this is what I tended to do), you under-rest. Hoard per rest resources too much, relying on per encounter instead, but then having to rest to regain health instead (which if course would also happen more quickly than if you did hit the sweet spot and used somewhat more per rest resources). In which case some of the fights would have been more difficult than intended, some would be much easier than intended (because as you start running out of health and have a whole bunch of spells left, you might as well have a big blow-out on the next mob before you rest), and you generally don't really get to play with all your cool spells and items. 

 

Moreover, outside of longer dungeons there'd be little incentive to conserve per rest resources, since there is probably an inn around the corner anyway. Similarly, in a dungeon often it'll be pretty obvious when you've arrived at the end-of-dungeon boss (or rather, are about to), and you don't need to conserve anything anymore either. In which case you're also face with the dilemma of resting right before or not. You'll likely have the supplies for it, and there is no immediate incentive not to use them since it's end of dungeon, and next stop will be back to town. And there is no way of knowing what the boss fight was actually balanced for.

[Rheios]

 

1)

Pathfinder is undoubtedly popular as a tabletop game and within the context of tabletop gaming I have absolutely no issues with the Vancian system as resting is frequently moderated by the DM and party engaging in the campaign. Far as I'm aware Pathfinder hasn't yet found tremendous success as a videogame franchise, and we'll have to look at the upcoming Kingmaker to see how that turns out. The issues I raise and have raised in the past regarding vancian casting is that people should recognize the difference between developing a system for a tabletop experience and a videogame one. And whilst I'm not looking at other forums as arbiters of "good" or "progress", I *am* looking at the many discussions in more neutral grounds about these to see what people love about them that keeps them so high on the all-time rankings and so on, and *combat* is almost always looked as something most of these games work *in spite of*. This is a frequent remark I've seen, and I was replying with this same about a remark that brought up the "general consensus" or "praise" lavished at these games. What I meant to say with all of this is that the 'praise' heaped upon games that have tangentially used a vancian system is *not* an argument in favour of it or against change.

 

Also I should point out that I've seen cokane fall on similar fallacies time and time again in the past so I'm on a bit of a short fuse whenever I respond to him.

 

Personally, I'm more about discussing the actual merits and shortcomings of the vancian system when applied to practice. AFA's remark about the system being "pretty crappy" most likely referred to his opinion on its implementation and not on how it was generally perceived and so on. It's an opinion I would agree with too, because as far as I'm concerned the restrictions to resting in all of these games are so soft that it's remarkably easy to rest after every second encounter, making a vancian restriction absolutely inconsequential and mostly just an appendage-like nuissance that every so often will have you click a few buttons or backtrack a little more often than necessary. Camping supplies are never scarce enough to make you hold on to them a little longer, surprise mobs aren't dangerous enough (or unavoidable for that matter, considering the ability to save-scum) to be a real threat, time is rarely ever of the essence so as to force you to make your in-game hours count. With no mechanic to add a real risk or trade-off to replenishing those resources, the management of the same becomes pointless and thus there's no reason why said resources shouldn't automatically be replenished after a fight. Considering how Deadfire handles the resting system I don't see how vancian casting would have served any purpose for it or made much of a difference to the overall experience beyond maybe adding another reason to consume foods and visit inns.

 

 

 

2)

 

I always tend to micromanage too, and haven't even opened the AI editor in my Deadfire playthrough. I don't see what advantages a vancian system would have given me, if you care to expand.

 

 

1) 

I think I see where you're coming from a bit better here. And we all have hot button issues for ourselves. Getting me talking about Simulation vs Abstraction in games and system changes is to get me ranting, which is why I avoided it after a while. I'm interested to see how Kingmaker goes too, although I'm pretty skeptical. Honestly about most games anymore.

 

Some of the views on the combat, I tend to wonder if the time of playing them will effect things. I still like 2e but I'd bet introducing new people to it would mean it hasn't aged as well as my understanding of it or 3.X would mark. Not that its bad, even now, so much as that tastes do change and you may be right about the popularity - which is why Deadfire could be the way it is now. Trends blow the way of the greater populace, regardless of how I see them. I could be more niche than I think I am for video games.

 

I kindof cover the lack of impact to force resting thing (beyond fatigue which was removed beyond encounters/wounds) below, but so far as save-scumming for optimum results or players electing to rest after every combat, I honestly wouldn't even create the game around those expectations. I might throw up a warning on the game itself denoting that fact - I'm not one for misleading consumers. Reason being I don't see it as a problem, its pretty obvious the game doesn't expect you to just keep resting, just because a mechanic exists doesn't mean a voluntary abuse of it means they should fix the game to work around the player. The player needs to have a certain amount of buy in to the character and the world, same as at any table. Its not as enforceable, obviously, but I think we're all able enough to make our own choices about how to play the game. I rest more in Deadfire now that I understand it better, even in spite of it not helping me really, because not resting explicitly bugs me. (Actually kindof wish they had a better system for a crew off-day or party, which would be low priority, just so I didn't have to juggle supplies to give them all a day of fancy meals after killing those 4 crews of giant or whatever. Granted that's so low priority as to be laughable even if I was in charge). I don't like the new system as much but I don't hate it, I just find that not having to plan out for my resources on a per day basis a bit boring comparatively. I didn't rest until my resources were spent or somebody was about to die, and even then tended to juggle party organization around so that the low health person was protected and fighting at range while the others were in greater danger.

 

Although I think I like food on rest as a concept more than eating it before battle? I'm torn because I do sortof miss the old survival rest bonus concept a bit too but I'm digressing.

 

2)

Mostly just greater forced tactical decision because of planning for future encounters. Admittedly if you didn't do that in POE 1, unless they really shored up the amount of resting (you can only benefit once until wounded or fatigued or something)  then you could still abuse the old resting mechanics and maybe not worry about it. But I never saw that indicative of a failure of the system itself so much as a choice by the player to expend their own time and resources to enforce their own encounters that way - against possibly even the type of character they're playing. It admittedly is a problem that exists in 3.5 and Pathfinder too and its why 5e D&D explicitly made the 'no multiple rests' thing a rule, but even there its a choice by the DM and the table to do. Its just that in a single player game you're all the players and even the parts of the DM that the settings and your own choices control.

[Rheios]

 

I mean, you inflicted that on yourself. Stuff like that was supposed to be the reason you didn't over-rest in POE (not that you didn't find supplies way too often imo), and if it didn't dissuade you than the opportunity cost wasn't as onerous as you were making it sound.  Half the fun of that system though *is* mitigating risk/reward, and driving forward into the unknown and gauge how much farther you can go. But some people *hate* that micromanagement aspect too and its fair if you do. I'm just sorry it was such a slog for you.  

 

But how are you supposed to know what the 'right' amount of rest is? This is part of the problem with this kind of system, going into a dungeon (or whatever) you have no idea how deep it goes and how much resistance there is. Hence, it is very easy on the one hand to find yourself expending per rest resources too quickly (and having fights that are therefore easier than they were supposed to be), and having to run back to an inn for supplies and rest (though often not even that, since as you say there were a fair amount of camping supplies around to be found; so even without going back it would be relatively easy to overrest).

 

Or on the other hand (and this is what I tended to do), you under-rest. Hoard per rest resources too much, relying on per encounter instead, but then having to rest to regain health instead (which if course would also happen more quickly than if you did hit the sweet spot and used somewhat more per rest resources). In which case some of the fights would have been more difficult than intended, some would be much easier than intended (because as you start running out of health and have a whole bunch of spells left, you might as well have a big blow-out on the next mob before you rest), and you generally don't really get to play with all your cool spells and items. 

 

Moreover, outside of longer dungeons there'd be little incentive to conserve per rest resources, since there is probably an inn around the corner anyway. Similarly, in a dungeon often it'll be pretty obvious when you've arrived at the end-of-dungeon boss (or rather, are about to), and you don't need to conserve anything anymore either. In which case you're also face with the dilemma of resting right before or not. You'll likely have the supplies for it, and there is no immediate incentive not to use them since it's end of dungeon, and next stop will be back to town. And there is no way of knowing what the boss fight was actually balanced for.

 

I'd say trial and error to some extent. I tend to push really far too, but try to use at least 2/day ability per combat at least, and tend to find my stuff running out almost at the same rate as my fighters. Then I can juggle things around a little and put the chanter/ranger up front and the fighter+paladin ranging in the back for another fight with low health, blow my resources, and then rest. Although I tend to make things a bit harder because I'm just as bad as a bunch of people in this thread with hoarding. Its why I probably won't use the new statuettes in Deadfire since the nerf. But finding those sweet spot's your talking about is enjoyable for me. I get that it isn't for other people though, I'm just contrarily not a huge fan of the 'always have your abilities' Deadfire thing because without those, fatigue, and health I just don't see the point of even having a rest mechanic since is apparently happening in the background anyway. Honestly why even have wounds at that point? Since its just as easy to rest up with some hard tack still. I still press on and don't rest like I should, but now I don't feel like there's ever a pull to rest as a result. Some people may love it, and I don't *hate* it. I just don't find it as fun or verisimilitudic(?). Which is why now I periodically uselessly rest while travelling, but avoid it in dungeons. I just kindof had to teach myself to invert my expectations from the last game, but switching between them is weird sometimes now.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Rheios

[Celan]

It all depends on where you're coming from. If you're more willing to roll with the punches and come out bruised, and to enjoy the challenge of thinking about the dungeon as a dungeon, then Deadfire kills a lot of that. If you hate the feeling of running out of something or not being at your optimal state, then Deadfire will be much better.

 

I see this expressed a lot and I don't understand it, since all PoE2 does is replace the occasional frustration of being out of rest supplies with the **almost every encounter** frustration of being out of casts.

 

To the OP, I feel your frustration. Wizard seems to be still powerful enough to make it worth single classing, but druid is boring and feels quite limited in PoE2, whereas it was a lot of fun in 1.