[merged] Vancian Magic System and cooldowns

[Caerdon]

That's a nice thought, but I've never heard of such 'good developers'. I don't know of a game where you can get consistent, useful and specific information about the opponents you're going to face. It'd be great if P:E would be one, but I highly doubt it.

I think the point is to not make it specific. A good DM makes it just vague enough so that it doesn't feel like you're being spoon-fed instructions on how to win. (although there's nothing wrong with flat out spoon-feeding instructions every once in a while) But generally, a good DM will want to keep it Just vague enough so that a keen, alert player can connect the dots, while a dumb player is S.O.L. for not using his head.

 

Yeah, I get that. I love that kind of gameplay, and it works wonderfully in PnP. But it doesn't work so well in CRPGs, especially when using Vancian casters who benefit enormously from metagame knowledge.

 

Now, if the game did provide such specific information, it would lessen the impact of metagaming, because you'd have same kind of information without it, and the game could actually be balanced for that. Of course, that would be spoon-feeding instructions, so would it really be a victory? I guess not.

 

All in all, Vancian spellcasting leads to bad gameplay in CRPGs.

 

And I've seen Developers do a fine job in that avenue. More to the point: I've seen the very developers who are working on Project Eternity do it well. Icewind Dale 2. The Holy Avenger party battle. Each one of the Enemies for that fight had their own specific set of immunities, and their own specific set of vunerabilities. A player who didn't bother to read the storied item description/Journal they found in Dragon's Eye, ended up in big big trouble in that fight. On the other hand, someone who took their time, read the lore, read the journals, ended up getting enough information to formulate a winning game plan --- and relevantly, they got that information well ahead of time, so that they could prepare the right spells, weapons and items for the battle.

 

You know, that sounds great. But was that approach used for most or all of the tough encounters?

[dlux]

Knock and its old friends spider climb and invisibility are part of a classic family of spells that made rogue and thief players say, "Hey, why do I exist?" I don't believe their inclusion in pre-4E editions of D&D and AD&D was a great thing. That sort of spell design is good if you're making a game specifically about how awesomely powerful wizards are (e.g. Ars Magica), but I don't think it's good in a class-based system where the classes are supposed to have different strengths and weaknesses. Also, I think the high-level design of rituals in 4E is a good thing because allows casters to retain the ability to use classic spells like speak with dead with a time and material cost. It just doesn't force players to choose, daily, between the spells they use constantly and the spells they use once every three to five sessions (in tabletop terms). It's pretty rare that someone "expects" to cast speak with dead, so any occasion where the player would have a good reason to use it is likely to catch the player unprepared under normal pre-4E conditions.

True. The D&D system could be exploited so that you did not need a thief at all. Not just for picking locks, but also for detecting and disabling traps.

 

E.g. a cleric can cast "detect traps", then you buff your tank or summon creatures to trigger the trap. Then you rest (if required). Wash, rinse, repeat.

Edited October 1, 2012 by dlux

[metiman]

It would be nice if more people would give actual examples of a good implementation of the spell system they are advocating. What's missing from many arguments is "This is the sort of thing I am talking about". Or if their favored system has never been implemented well then at least admit that it has never been done before. At least in a way that they approve of. It would also be nice to see people giving examples of games that demonstrate their point about how bad the system they dislike is.

 

My examples would be:

Vancian = BG2;

Mana = Arx Fatalis;

Cooldowns = Dragon Age;

[metiman]

http://www.formsprin...733585262007490

 

Josh on cooldowns:

I think they're fine, but it's just one mechanic. As with any timing-based mechanic, I think it needs to be used in conjunction with other tactical considerations to force the player to think more about what to do.

 

So...Dragon Age combat then. Well that's it. I was trying to decide between the $140 and $250 tiers. Now I won't be contributing at all. An old school game with cooldowns. Nice. Unless MCA or Tim Cain can convince Sawyer of the wrongness of them. I'll wait to see if cooldowns are officially ruled out until the end of the kickstarter, but this game is dead to me now. Enjoy your Biowarian twitch-based popamole kiddies. I'll go back to replaying BG2 and anticipating Wasteland 2.

[TrashMan]

@Trashman: DnD system isn't even explained, its a ruleset applied to the worlds. None of the worlds explain why they can only memorize a certain number of things. It doesn't make sense in DnD, at all. I've been i RP situations where folks have tried to explain it, and they can't. All they can do is explain how it works, not why its that way. To me, that's a very, very big difference in making something believeable. The second your explaination as to try something is the way it is, comes down to anime shoulder shrugging of '... and thats the way it is' and everyone just kinda nods like 'makes sense, I geuss its just that way because yeah'. Even though they kinda don't explain it and... yeah.

 

The explanation there is is enough. Of cource, oyu can disagree ,but ultimatively it doens't matter.

At some point you reach the point of answering with "because it just works that way"...in ANY system.

 

Why do mages have the amount of mana they do in Dragon Age? Because they do.

How exactly does drawing that mana work? ETc, etc.. I can keep asking questions till you run out of answers. Heck, I can easiyl do it for the real world.

 

Why does mass afffect gravity? Because it does. Period. There is no explanation beyond that.

 

Why is it to hard to accept that in D&D having spells in the pre-cast states is a drain on the mages mind and he can only keep so many ready at a time? Why does that "not make sense"?

[dlux]

http://www.formsprin...733585262007490

 

Josh on cooldowns:

I think they're fine, but it's just one mechanic. As with any timing-based mechanic, I think it needs to be used in conjunction with other tactical considerations to force the player to think more about what to do.

 

So...Dragon Age combat then. Well that's it. I was trying to decide between the $140 and $250 tiers. Now I won't be contributing at all. An old school game with cooldowns. Nice. Unless MCA or Tim Cain can convince Sawyer of the wrongness of them. I'll wait to see if cooldowns are officially ruled out until the end of the kickstarter, but this game is dead to me now. Enjoy your Biowarian twitch-based popamole kiddies. I'll go back to replaying BG2 and anticipating Wasteland 2.

lol

[TrashMan]

I still think fatigue would probably be the best - but again, it's tied to resting.

I like Vanacian, and the "flaws" aare nto really flaws. Especially in later editions, where mages can cast cantrips for free...however, I really don't see how it that really different from using your sling.

There is a notion that a mage should do nothing but cast spells...why? Wouln't the concpet of what a mage is and how he fights depend on the setting? What is wrong with a mage fighting in melee occasionaly? What is wrong with him using a sling or crossbow? Who sez he has to suck with it?

 

Seriously..

 

 

No, the problem here is that the cost that the resting system has - in-game time - is meaningless to a CRPG player. Time in the gmae doesn't affect anything, so if there are no consequnces for resting every 5 minutes, then the system becomes abusable.

 

You can make resting very dangerous, with a high chance to be attacked by monster - but again, players can get around that by reloading and resting untill the dice roll their way and no monsters come.

So the only way to "fix" this is to make monsters a 100% resting event. No way to avoid them if you're in hostile territory. That means the player is either forced to spend 10 minutes of his REAL time backtracking to a safe resting area, or pushing forward. Of course, now some will complain that this is bad design because it doesn't allow them to abuse the rules..but whatever.

 

 

I honestly think mages should have to rest, as casting mighy spells should be damn tireing.

[metiman]

Memory is limited. If you imagine a single spell to consist of many complex incantations and hand movements and the more powerful the spell the more complex and lengthy the incantations are, you might have some idea as to why memorizing 100 different complex spells and being able to recall all of them instantly could be...difficult. It is generally easier to remember something you memorized recently. That's sufficient for me. You could also imagine that something about magic makes it especially difficult to memorize. For instance perhaps the incantations and hand movements have to absolutely perfect. Perhaps even the slightest variation will make the spell fizzle. Anything but a fresh memorization may not be sufficient to recall things so perfectly. Not that any of this really matters.

 

For me the bottom line is how enjoyable a magic system is in practice. My favorite combat systems are BG2 and ToEE. One was 2nd Ed. D&D and the other was 3rd, but both used Vancian magic. I couldn't play Dragon Age for more than one hour before uninstalling the game. The combat was even worse than WoW. That system was not Vancian. It was mostly cooldown based. Hence my preference. The fact that Vancian may be a bit more difficult to explain with a narrative is less important to me than the fact that it is a hugely enjoyable system to actually play.

[Stun]

Yeah, I get that. I love that kind of gameplay, and it works wonderfully in PnP. But it doesn't work so well in CRPGs, especially when using Vancian casters who benefit enormously from metagame knowledge.

ALL classes in all games benefit enormously from metagame knowledge. But I can't think of a single vancian system-using crpg I've ever played where metagaming is actually needed for effectiveness. (and isn't that what we're discussing?) After 10 minutes of brainstorming, I can only come up with one single example in one single game: The Kangaxx fight in Bg2 - which is not only optional, but chances are you'll miss it on your first playthrough

 

All in all, Vancian spellcasting leads to bad gameplay in CRPGs.

It really doesn't. There's no difference in actual gameplay. In low-level campaigns, you won't ever encounter enemies who are so tough and specialized that you find yourself in a situation where your mage "mis-prepared" his spellbook (or whatever you guys are paranoid about), and in high level campaigns, your mage's list of memorized spells is so massive that it's virtually impossible to NOT be prepared for just about everything the game could ever throw at you. Unless you really *really* suck at choosing spells (ie. you decided to memorize infravision 8 times, instead of, you know, instinctively diversifying with some offensive spells)

 

 

And I've seen Developers do a fine job in that avenue. More to the point: I've seen the very developers who are working on Project Eternity do it well. Icewind Dale 2. The Holy Avenger party battle. Each one of the Enemies for that fight had their own specific set of immunities, and their own specific set of vunerabilities. A player who didn't bother to read the storied item description/Journal they found in Dragon's Eye, ended up in big big trouble in that fight. On the other hand, someone who took their time, read the lore, read the journals, ended up getting enough information to formulate a winning game plan --- and relevantly, they got that information well ahead of time, so that they could prepare the right spells, weapons and items for the battle.

 

You know, that sounds great. But was that approach used for most or all of the tough encounters?

No. Just about every other fight in IWD2 was straight forward. That is to say, the enemies/encounters could be dealt with using the player's standard encounter approach. (spamming fireballs is just as effective against the Orc chief and his minions in chapter 1, as it is against a group of Yuanti cultists and their leader in chapter 5.)

Edited October 1, 2012 by Stun

[metiman]

Scouting seems to mitigate if not outright eliminate the "guessing not strategy" criticism of Vancian. If a designer is very concerned about it he can simply offer improved scouting opportunities. Rangers with stealth. Mage familiars with stealth or invisibility. Scouting spells that only other mages can detect. And of course thieves with excellent hide in shadows abilites.

[TrashMan]

Knock and its old friends spider climb and invisibility are part of a classic family of spells that made rogue and thief players say, "Hey, why do I exist?"

 

Backstabing. Rouges are DPS kings...which is soemthing I always found redicolous, when that scrawny thief with a dagger does more damage than my barbarian with an greataxe.

[TrashMan]

http://www.formsprin...733585262007490

 

Josh on cooldowns:

I think they're fine, but it's just one mechanic. As with any timing-based mechanic, I think it needs to be used in conjunction with other tactical considerations to force the player to think more about what to do.

 

So...Dragon Age combat then. Well that's it. I was trying to decide between the $140 and $250 tiers. Now I won't be contributing at all. An old school game with cooldowns. Nice. Unless MCA or Tim Cain can convince Sawyer of the wrongness of them. I'll wait to see if cooldowns are officially ruled out until the end of the kickstarter, but this game is dead to me now. Enjoy your Biowarian twitch-based popamole kiddies. I'll go back to replaying BG2 and anticipating Wasteland 2.

 

I feel for you and I feel the same way.

I really think cooldown is the worst possible solution.

[dlux]

Knock and its old friends spider climb and invisibility are part of a classic family of spells that made rogue and thief players say, "Hey, why do I exist?"

 

Backstabing. Rouges are DPS kings...which is soemthing I always found redicolous, when that scrawny thief with a dagger does more damage than my barbarian with an greataxe.

Barbarians are tanks and rogues are damage doers... So it's not very surprising.

 

http://www.formsprin...733585262007490

 

Josh on cooldowns:

I think they're fine, but it's just one mechanic. As with any timing-based mechanic, I think it needs to be used in conjunction with other tactical considerations to force the player to think more about what to do.

 

So...Dragon Age combat then. Well that's it. I was trying to decide between the $140 and $250 tiers. Now I won't be contributing at all. An old school game with cooldowns. Nice. Unless MCA or Tim Cain can convince Sawyer of the wrongness of them. I'll wait to see if cooldowns are officially ruled out until the end of the kickstarter, but this game is dead to me now. Enjoy your Biowarian twitch-based popamole kiddies. I'll go back to replaying BG2 and anticipating Wasteland 2.

 

I feel for you and I feel the same way.

I really think cooldown is the worst possible solution.

Just because Josh answered a question about this mechanic does not mean that it will be in the game.

Edited October 1, 2012 by dlux

[TrashMan]

Knock and its old friends spider climb and invisibility are part of a classic family of spells that made rogue and thief players say, "Hey, why do I exist?"

 

Backstabing. Rouges are DPS kings...which is soemthing I always found redicolous, when that scrawny thief with a dagger does more damage than my barbarian with an greataxe.

Barbarians are tanks and rogues are damage doers... So it's not very surprising.

 

Am I supposed to like that "role" distribution?

 

I don't think rouges should be DPS. They should be support. Decent fighters but they are primarily support. They shouldn't excell in any role in combat, since they shouldn't be a combat-heavy class to begin with. Hiding, traps, various skills and such - that is what they should do.

[Stun]

In the old IE games rogues weren't DPS kings. You had to be invisible to backstab, and once you got off a single backstab, that was it. You became visible and your subsequent hits were normal weapon damage, and far less than what a standard Fighter could do per round. If you wanted to backstab again, you had to re-stealth, which was nearly impossible to do without magical assistance, and literally impossible to do in the same round as your previous backstab.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Stun

[ddillon]

Knock and its old friends spider climb and invisibility are part of a classic family of spells that made rogue and thief players say, "Hey, why do I exist?" I don't believe their inclusion in pre-4E editions of D&D and AD&D was a great thing. That sort of spell design is good if you're making a game specifically about how awesomely powerful wizards are (e.g. Ars Magica), but I don't think it's good in a class-based system where the classes are supposed to have different strengths and weaknesses.

 

 

As I've said before on these forums, take inspiration from DA:O. Backstab, dirty combat tricks, poisons, bombs, dual-wielding, lockpicking, trap detection, etc - useful and very fun to play. Make the rogue worthwhile without taking anything away from other classes. Nerfing mages is not a good solution. So what if a mage can unlock chests and doors and scout with invisibility or a familiar? The rogue class should be interesting and useful enough to entice players to include one in the party anyway.

Edited October 1, 2012 by ddillon

[Caerdon]

It would be nice if more people would give actual examples of a good implementation of the spell system they are advocating. What's missing from many arguments is "This is the sort of thing I am talking about". Or if their favored system has never been implemented well then at least admit that it has never been done before. At least in a way that they approve of. It would also be nice to see people giving examples of games that demonstrate their point about how bad the system they dislike is.

 

My examples would be:

Vancian = BG2;

Mana = Arx Fatalis;

Cooldowns = Dragon Age;

 

You're right, we need more actual suggestionsa and less criticism. Thanks for the reminder!

 

TrashMan made the suggestion that I've liked best so far. I already had something similar in mind, but his words really crystallized it in my mind. So here's my version of what he suggested (if you don't like it, don't hold it against him):

 

You have these attributes:

1. Mana Pool (MP), which depends on your class, race, level, stats, skills, etc.
   
2. Mana Limit (ML), which is always somewhere between 0 < ML <= MP
   
3. Current Mana (CM), which is always somewhere between 0 <= CM <= ML
   

And they work like this:

• CM will constantly regenerate.
  
• ML can only be regenerated by resting. Resting full 8 hours (or whatever your character requires, maybe some skills, race etc. can affect this) will restore it to MP; if your rest is interrupted, ML will regenerate only partially
  
• Each spell S has power SP, which may be simply it's level or some more fine-tuned power value
  
• Casting spell S will reduce CM by an amount directly proportional to SP (so this reduction is small for small SP, large for large SP)
  
• Casting spell S will also reduce ML by a percentage amount directly proportional to SP^X, where 1 < X < 2 (i.e. this reduction is very small for small SP, very large for large SP, X is a fine-tuned constant)
  

So what does this imply:

• You can spam your low-level spells quite a lot before your CM is spent, and it will regenerate quite quickly, too
  
• Low-level spells will lower your ML only slowly, so you can use them quite carelessly the whole day before you have to rest (good thing if you have to reserve your strength)
  
• High level spells will exhaust your CM quickly, so you can only use a few in succession
  
• High level spells will also lower your ML quite quickly, which means that if you don't rest between fights, your CM will run out much faster in the next one
  
• When your ML gets lower and lower, you will progressively lose your ability to cast high-level spells (because your CM will never grow high enough to cast them)
  
• As ML is only reduced by a percentage amount, it will never be reduced to zero, which means you're going to retain your lowest level spells for a very long time even without resting - although ultimately your CM will probably be spent after every single casting forcing you to wait for it to regenerate
  

This system could support any number of additional tweaks:

• Increased chance of spell failure the lower your ML gets
  
• Reduced physical or mental capability the lower your ML gets
  
• Chance of dizziness, nausea or even loss of conciousness if CM or ML gets way too low
  
• Possibly a small additional cooldown for some or all spells
  
• A skill that lets you prepare a number of spells for quicker casting and/or lower mana consumption
  
• A skill (or maybe a potion) that makes it safer to perform low-ML casting (won't really make you more powerful, but still a life-saver if you can't rest for a long while)
  
• Casting severals spells of same 'school of magic' in succession increases the hit on ML
  
• ...unless you specialize in that particular school
  
• etc.
  

[Luckmann]

snip

 

The real disadvantages if casting is done on mana or on cooldown and all spells are available at all the time is that the spell list has to be small, otherwise the game won't be balanced.

Unless you combine it with a psuedo-Vancian approach of preparing a limited load-out.

[Luckmann]

It would be nice if more people would give actual examples of a good implementation of the spell system they are advocating. What's missing from many arguments is "This is the sort of thing I am talking about". Or if their favored system has never been implemented well then at least admit that it has never been done before. At least in a way that they approve of. It would also be nice to see people giving examples of games that demonstrate their point about how bad the system they dislike is.

The problem is that every time you actually do that, people just sorta glance right past the post and continue arguing about "I don't like X".

[Adhin]

@Trashman: That's true enough I guess, I just don't think it fits with any RPG world I've ever been a part of, it always seems mildly opposed to the ideas of it. In the end I just don't like the system, I'm perfectly fine with using it, I just think it requires far to much foresight to use well. It's kinda like playing chess with out knowing the rules. A lot of infinity engine encounters in BG where actually built around the idea of ganking you immediately on first run in with it. It was some bizar way ot getting you to know what your going up against so you re-load and prepare ahead of time for the fight its self. The fact they actually thought about it that way and designed the encounters with the idea you'd die, get that knowledge of what the fight is in the process and 'reload and prepare for it' just always felt kinda stupid to me.

 

One reason I tended to set up most people for front line fighting to try and mitigate that as much as possible, only ever had 1 mage. Also helps that the spells you find in cRPG tend to be less about the utility RPG stuff and more just dealing with combat in a variaty of ways. Either way, I think the systems crap, just my opinion on it.

 

As for 'metagaming is bad' is... silly. Metagaming exists in every RPG. RPG's are games made up OF metagaming. Picking skills? That's metagaming, hating on that just cause of the word metagame makes no sense. Granted I think theres good and bad metagaming, more so when you get outside of single player games and get into more RP related stuff (multiple people) but that's unrelated to this. Ultimately there aren't to many single-player related things that're bad when talking about metagaming. It's all just part of the game.. though, as mentioned above, I dislike the gank-encounters -> reload -> prepare with gained knowledge of whats up ahead. Feel like that's less fun on the initial go through but, ultimately, it's the kinda knowledge you ahve on your 2nd or 3rd play through anyway so... more of a time waster.

[Hagen]

Agreed that rogues shouldn't be DPS king. They can still bring a lot to a party - dirty tricks in combat like poisoned blades and arrows, stealth (if light level and cover permit - no invisibility button please) and reconnaisance, lockpicking without making a frigging racket and alerting the next three rooms full of enemies, earning the party money with pickpocketing or cheating in gambling, etc.

 

Rogues even could be *extremely* valuable for jobs like "you need plot item X, but killing the current owner will cause you a huge reputation loss with faction Y" - the rogue just sneaks in and steals the item, no one's the wiser, faction Y has no reason to hate you.

 

Point (wo)man - the rogue sneaks ahead of the party, scouting for traps and enemies and improving the chance that the party will avoid ambushes and in fact may be able to set up an ambush of their own. Some classic old RPG - was it Wizard's Crown? I don't remember right now - asked you who'd be on point whenever your party moved across the world map, and used the pointman's skills in stealth and perception and such to roll for encounters and to decide who surprised whom.

 

There's LOTS of awesome stuff for rogues to do, and they don't need to be DPS kings at all to be useful.

[Infinitron]

http://www.formsprin...733585262007490

 

Josh on cooldowns:

I think they're fine, but it's just one mechanic. As with any timing-based mechanic, I think it needs to be used in conjunction with other tactical considerations to force the player to think more about what to do.

 

So...Dragon Age combat then. Well that's it. I was trying to decide between the $140 and $250 tiers. Now I won't be contributing at all. An old school game with cooldowns. Nice. Unless MCA or Tim Cain can convince Sawyer of the wrongness of them. I'll wait to see if cooldowns are officially ruled out until the end of the kickstarter, but this game is dead to me now. Enjoy your Biowarian twitch-based popamole kiddies. I'll go back to replaying BG2 and anticipating Wasteland 2.

 

Please, they're called "KOOL downs".

[sparklecat]

I think it's possible to still make prep meaningful by allowing the player to switch between pre-built (by the player) suites of spells at a frequency that is less than "per rest". I.e. if the player can only use a subset of spells at any given time, but can switch between those subsets with a time penalty (or only outside of combat), that still makes the choices important without the system strictly being Vancian.

 

That sounds like a lot of micromanaging of your spell lists, though. Also like you'd tend to find a couple groups that work for the majority of encounters and stick with them, rather than experimenting with something new, or pulling out that little-used spell in a tight situation because nothing else is working, which is basically why I favour having everything available - more likely to go "I wonder if this might help?" at some point, which is where half the fun can come from. One of my favourite Baldur's Gate II memories was a time I was having trouble with the final fight, pulled out a scroll of sphere of chaos on the grounds that I couldn't make things much worse by that point, and ended up with Irenicus turned into a squirrel for half the fight.

[Cthulchulain]

It would be nice to have some options for knowing ahead of time (rumours, tracking ability, divinations) what one might expect to face, which would help prepare accordingly. An extended quest should be expedition-like in terms of planning, and with the expectation of not being able to conveniently return to town every time somebody gets bitten by a squirrel -- though not every one has to be like this. Even warriors should have to think ahead and prepare for what's coming, though that could be more gear-oriented (rogues choosing appropriate trap components, bombs?) than "preparing spells". That could be an interesting dichotomy, actually -- physical classes having "universal" skills but more dependent on the right gear, whereas casters might be able to alter their spell focus.

 

Then surprise/mystery encounters would really be that, the first time anyhow. Though hopefully not abused... The idea of adventurers saying "we're off to kill... things... in a... place..." and blithely walking off with no clue what they're about to face seems a bit absurd. Extended adventures designed in such away that they are balanced, challenging and *most fun* to do in one go (maybe short rest mechanic) would be somewhat less metagamey, and the right mechanics could move the metagaming into the game.

[Umberlin]

Knock and its old friends spider climb and invisibility are part of a classic family of spells that made rogue and thief players say, "Hey, why do I exist?" I don't believe their inclusion in pre-4E editions of D&D and AD&D was a great thing. That sort of spell design is good if you're making a game specifically about how awesomely powerful wizards are (e.g. Ars Magica), but I don't think it's good in a class-based system where the classes are supposed to have different strengths and weaknesses. Also, I think the high-level design of rituals in 4E is a good thing because allows casters to retain the ability to use classic spells like speak with dead with a time and material cost. It just doesn't force players to choose, daily, between the spells they use constantly and the spells they use once every three to five sessions (in tabletop terms). It's pretty rare that someone "expects" to cast speak with dead, so any occasion where the player would have a good reason to use it is likely to catch the player unprepared under normal pre-4E conditions.

 

Illusion, Transmutation, Divination and Enchantment style Wizards were some of the most interesting to play. Even conjuration styled Wizards have potential if their potential is tapped and they aren't made out to be just, "The Pet Wizard" . . . .

 

I'm just worried the approach you're talking about would make it hard, or impossible, to play any sort of Wizard that wasn't the typical evocation styled, "I shoot it with a fireball! I shoot it with a fireball! I shoot it with a fireball!" Wizard . . . outside of those 'rare' instances where we'd perform a ritual with reagents. The Transmutation or Illusion styled magic users are legitimate in their own right. If the invisibility and knock spells makes a rogue wonder why he exists, then he's not aware of his strengths in the least and that's an issue with the player. Because there are plenty of reasons for that Rogue to exist while those spells also exist.

 

Rogues in D&D, from my perspective, on top of having the ability to stealth at will, not using up a memorization slot for invisibility, had plenty of toys to work with and played the role of DPS massively. The sort of Rogue you're talking about that wonders why he exists just sounds like PnP player Rogues I've come across that refuse to flank the enemy and get the free damage bonus. Rogue players like that stand out especially when you see someone playing a Rogue that actually uses the skillset available to them, rather than uselessly wondering why they exist as if they don't have plenty of option laid out in front of them.

 

I'm really worried how magic users in this game will turn out, possibly as little more than damage dealers with a weakness to bullets, when you talk like this because it makes me think we'll be back with the usual, "I shoot fireballs at it" magic users and not exploring the interesting, weird and less obvious forms of magic that were always the more enjoyable ones.

 

That's a nice thought, but I've never heard of such 'good developers'. I don't know of a game where you can get consistent, useful and specific information about the opponents you're going to face. It'd be great if P:E would be one, but I highly doubt it.

I think the point is to not make it specific. A good DM makes it just vague enough so that it doesn't feel like you're being spoon-fed instructions on how to win. (although there's nothing wrong with flat out spoon-feeding instructions every once in a while, especially early on) But generally, a good DM will want to keep it Just vague enough so that a keen, alert player can connect the dots, while a dumb player is S.O.L. for not paying attention.

 

Exactly.

 

And I've seen Developers do a fine job in that avenue. More to the point: I've seen the very developers who are working on Project Eternity do it well. Icewind Dale 2. The Holy Avenger party battle. Each one of the Enemies for that fight had their own specific set of immunities, vunerabilities, and attack modes. A player who didn't bother to read the storied item description/Journal they found in Dragon's Eye, ended up in big, big trouble in that fight. On the other hand, someone who took their time, read the lore, read the journals, ended up getting enough information to formulate a winning game plan --- and relevantly, they got that information well ahead of time, so that they could prepare the right spells, weapons and items for the battle.

 

Good example.