Jump to content

  

463 members have voted

  1. 1. Magic System

    • Vancian (Memorization)
      190
    • Mana Pool
      143
    • Other
      130
  2. 2. Spell Progression

    • Individual Spells (MM->Acid Arrow->Fire Ball ->Skull Trap)
      292
    • Spells get upgraded (MM LVL 1-> MM LVL 2)
      94
    • Other
      77
  3. 3. Should there be separate Arcane & Divine sides to magic?

    • Yes (D&D)
      268
    • No (DA:O)
      102
    • Other
      93


Recommended Posts

Well, they are actually split further than that -- there are multiple schools within the two sections, and even then, Druids which are "divine" casters also get their own unique spells, as do Bards, Paladins, and Rangers.

 

So yeah, it is divided further. But the real reason they are divided as arcane and divine? Is because Arcane has casting penalties for armor and Divine doesn't, and some spells that are shared are attained at different levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikayel, what you are arguing about is balance, not mechanics.

No one doubt a mage can be as useful or even more powerful compared to a sorcerer of the same level. The point is that the memorization mechanic is simply annoying.

 

I disagree, I think that memorization mechanic is a key difference to the way the two classes play (in fact, it's the single biggest difference) and as such it's not just a question of balance, but a question of use and place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they do.

That doesn't mean that the main character lives in a vacuum. You manage the main character with the rest of the party, not as a single entity.

 

What you are saying is essentially: "if my charater is a warrior and I hire a mage and a ranger, it's fine; if my character is a Mage, and I hire a warrior and a ranger, then it's boring because the mage it's me".

I'm sorry, but... How does it make any sense?

 

What? Where did I say anything remotely resembling that? If you were reading my posts as closely as you claim you would realize I am simply refuting the posts about caster classes hanging out in the back until the time is ripe to fire off their single spell before going back to doing nothing. Just so we can get back on track, I am equally opposed to any class doing nothing for several rounds.


image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, I think that memorization mechanic is a key difference to the way the two classes play (in fact, it's the single biggest difference) and as such it's not just a question of balance, but a question of use and place.

I know it's the single biggest difference *now*. What I'm arguing for is: get rid of the memorization mechanic, build all magic classes to work as sorcerers, build the difference between magic classes in some other different way, like giving them different spells or special abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I said "Project Eternity speaks about Infinity Engine games, refering back to specifically Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, and Planescape: Torment."

 

I clearly meant what they keep saying, as on the KS front page here -

 

Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment.

 

I read that to say Baldur's Gate 1, Icewind Dale 1 and Planescape: Torment. Not Baldur's Gate the series, Icewind Dale the series, etc.

 

You’ve got to be kidding me. Those games use the same engine and function nearly the same way. If you wanted to discount IWD 2 because its 3E rules instead of AD&D 2 then fine, but you are clearly just cherry-picking an argument here. How the hell would you NOT consider BG 2 when talking about IE games, it’s the biggest IE game ever?

 

BG 2 still used 2nd ED rules, regardless of Sorcerer in there ... IWD 2 did use a hybrid that moved most of the way into 3.0, sure.

So what? The point is that the style of casting in question, that people were attributing to other games, was already present in the damn games that influenced Eternity.

 

But this is a digression. The thread is about Vancian and cool downs (or alternatives to such). And this "debate" on what you said is going to long. I've said my part. You, at best, misspoke. Unless you can point to the "confusion" you are speaking of, I think it rests solely with you.

I didn’t mis-speak, you just didn’t understand. I already gave you two examples, if you want an obvious one then check page 15 of this thread where Tuco Benedicto refers to Chaos Chronicles’ system of casting (Chaos Chronicles uses 3.5 rules and the magic is basically Sorcerer or Favored Soul spell-points-per-level).

 

Here, I'll even give you a direct link: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60372-vancian-magic-system/page__st__280#entry1217563

 

He mentions how he -recently- heard of it, which is fine, I'm not saying the guy shouldn't post at all, I'm saying he should be more tentative of his thoughts relating to systems he's not too familiar with and maybe not talk about the central issue?

Edited by mikayel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Where did I say anything remotely resembling that? If you were reading my posts as closely as you claim you would realize I am simply refuting the posts about caster classes hanging out in the back until the time is ripe to fire off their single spell before going back to doing nothing. Just so we can get back on track, I am equally opposed to any class doing nothing for several rounds.

Are you kidding me? You specifically said that it becomes even more an issue when the caster is your main character. Which is what I'm confuting here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know it's the single biggest difference *now*. What I'm arguing for is: get rid of the memorization mechanic, build all magic classes to work as sorcerers, build the difference between magic classes in some other different way, like giving them different spells or special abilities.

 

If we are to have the full range of spells D&D has, we'd need something like 12+ classes that are casters alone, because that's how many schools and subsets of spells there are.

 

I am so against that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most enjoyable things I ever did was solo BG 1 and 2 as a wizard. It was so entertaining I did it twice. In my opinion that says a lot about what system is the best because my opinion always coincides with the truth.

 

Edit: Sorcerers have the most boring casting mechanics; I can't stand them.

Edited by Jasede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Where did I say anything remotely resembling that? If you were reading my posts as closely as you claim you would realize I am simply refuting the posts about caster classes hanging out in the back until the time is ripe to fire off their single spell before going back to doing nothing. Just so we can get back on track, I am equally opposed to any class doing nothing for several rounds.

Are you kidding me? You specifically said that it becomes even more an issue when the caster is your main character. Which is what I'm confuting here.

 

Thats because we were talking about casters. :ermm: I thought that was obvious what with the thread topic. Look, this is obviously going to devolve into a pissing contest so lets just agree to disagree. Everyone wins. :yes:


image,Gfted1,black,red.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are to have the full range of spells D&D has, we'd need something like 12+ classes that are casters alone, because that's how many schools and subsets of spells there are.

 

I am so against that.

yeah, I'm not following you at all, here.

 

First, this isn't supposed to be a D&D game, just a game that aims to a similar gameplay.

Second, how is the number of available spells strictly tied to a defined number of different classes of casters? There isn't any correlation, you could have twice the spells divided between half the classes.

Third, we already know that this game is going to have 8-9 classes at most, so let's drop pointless concerns about over-populating the game with too many different casters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes its good to just summarize what is wrong with the current system and try to fix those problems before re-implementing the whole system.

So far I have seen two major problem with the Memorization spells :

 

1. Resting anywhere and resting in general is making it too powerful.

2. Sometime it would be useful to cast particular spell(s) without the memorize new spell -> press rest button.

To fix it lets remove the rest button and replace with something else and enable to cast any spell without the need of preparation of that spell with some penalties.

 

A. Remove the rest function from the game and replace it by actually and visually pre-casting of spells after the change to spellbook is done. This is actually real memorization spell system, isnt ?

Example:

  1. you replace 2 spell in spellbook. You close the book. After couple of seconds (if outside of combat, wizard is not doing anything or just walking) he will actually start to cast/prepare those spells (to memorize those spell for future battle). This will take 10-15 seconds.
     
  2. You replace 10 spells in spellbook. This will take of course time to actually cast those spells (we will say 1-2 minutes).
     
  3. You will replace the whole spellbook. This will take much more time (5-15 minutes).
     
  4. You cast Fireball, kill every enemy. While your warrior characters and you loots their bodies, your idle wizard will actually re-memorize the Fireball spell to be used once again.

The pre-preparation of spells is done after every loss of memorized spells (automatically by the game (no need to do it manually )).

How fast or slow this process has to be, should be balanced. There is also possibility to change the rate of this based of locations. like slow in dungeon. Fast in daylight and so on... What is most important that this is controlled by the game and player can not abuse it like rest button. Of course if the player will wait after every battle couple of minutes then it cannot be helped (i doubt that most of the player would had the patience to wait and wait for all spells to be re-cast).

 

 

B: Allow full-spells to be cast manually out of combat and in combat (this with some penalty -- 2x-3x slower casting with high possibility of failure if hit or something like this during combat).

This will enable to cast any known spell, solving problem number 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, this isn't supposed to be a D&D game, just a game that aims to a similar gameplay.

 

If the game is influenced by D&D, which nearly all fantasy RPGs are and this one especially is, then its clear that there will be a carry over of traits and rules.

 

Second, how is the number of available spells strictly tied to a defined number of different classes of casters? There isn't any correlation, you could have twice the spells divided between half the classes.

Third, we already know that this game is going to have 8-9 classes at most, so let's drop pointless concerns about over-populating the game with too many different casters.

 

Well, think back to what I said. If we want a quarter of as many spells as base D&D (link: http://www.d20srd.or...exes/spells.htm ) and if casting works like Sorcerers do (spell points per level) then you either have a limited arsenal of spells you can cast many times a day, or you can get new spells by writing them in the book. If the former, then you severely limit the versatility or usefulness of your character. If the latter, then you overpower casters way too much because they would have access to all spells in their spell book many, many times as is fitting.

 

I'm not concerned about class bloat, I'm saying that if all spells can be written in a spell-book and cast via spell-points then the only way to balance it would be to either limit what schools of magic people have access to or to create unique subkits for casters by each school.

 

EDIT: Basically, my point is that changing all Vancian casting to Sorcerer casting would either gimp casters in versatility (by limiting what spells they have) or make them too powerful (by not limiting what spells they have at all). Vancian casting fills that middle ground of choosing what spells you want per day and allowing for a diverse tool-kit.

Edited by mikayel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to rule out cooldowns and I'm not going to design the entire magic system on the fly over the course of three weeks. Both Tim and I want the magic system to feel expansive, powerful, and flexible. We want the player to have to make prep choices when selecting spells for active use. These things do not require a Vancian system, nor do they require the absence of cooldowns as a mechanic. As I wrote in one of the class threads, our goal with class design is not to limit the role of classes but to ensure that every class does have at least one combat role they can clearly excel in. This does not mean that wizards won't be able to cast protective spells, transformative spells, etc. It is likely that they will not be able to select from all of those things in the moment but unlikely that we will require the player to rest to change what he or she has access to.

 

I think I speak for all of us when I say thanks for maintaining a dialogue. I can't wait to hear more of the system as it develops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sawyer didn't rule out cooldowns? That bodes ill. Nobody likes cooldowns, only RPG designers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is pretty adamant. Minus well wait and see. At least they listened to our concerns. Maybe a more meaningful dialogue will open up later on when they release concrete info on their spell system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am backing out as soon as cooldowns are confirmed. That's nothing like an IE game. As if people can't handle their wizard not doing something _AWESOME_ every single turn of combat.

 

Ticks me off, actually. Let's hope for the best; maybe he will see the light yet.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am backing out as soon as cooldowns are confirmed. That's nothing like an IE game. As if people can't handle their wizard not doing something _AWESOME_ every single turn of combat.

 

Ticks me off, actually. Let's hope for the best; maybe he will see the light yet.

 

Right now there's an Obsidian intern reading this thread and telling his boss "DON'T ANNOUNCE COOLDOWNS UNTIL THE KICKSTARTER ENDS!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am backing out as soon as cooldowns are confirmed. That's nothing like an IE game. As if people can't handle their wizard not doing something _AWESOME_ every single turn of combat.

 

Ticks me off, actually. Let's hope for the best; maybe he will see the light yet.

 

I have to agree. If cooldowns are in then I'm out too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuco: Check this out.

Uhm? I'm totally fine with this. Asynchronous combat pacing is exactly what I'm advocating for.

If anything, you should point it to Gfted1.

 

EDIT: Damn, I just noticed he was commenting my post. I missed that.

Edited by Tuco Benedicto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree, if there's a mana bar and/or cooldown instead of tons of awesome and unique spells like D&D, I'll back out as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread is about Vancian and cool downs (or alternatives to such). And this "debate" on what you said is going to long. I've said my part. You, at best, misspoke. Unless you can point to the "confusion" you are speaking of, I think it rests solely with you.

I didn’t mis-speak, you just didn’t understand. I already gave you two examples, if you want an obvious one then check page 15 of this thread where Tuco Benedicto refers to Chaos Chronicles’ system of casting (Chaos Chronicles uses 3.5 rules and the magic is basically Sorcerer or Favored Soul spell-points-per-level).

 

Here, I'll even give you a direct link: http://forums.obsidi...80#entry1217563

 

Well, it seems to me he knows exactly what he doesn't want -

 

I fiercely dislike the low flexibility on the memorization system in D&D, but I recently I heard a very nice variant to the same idea: Chaos Chronicles' developers are implementing in their new turn based RPG a slot system similar to the D&D one, but instead of memorizing every single spell a caster wnats to use, he simply has a limited number of slots for each spell level, and then as far as slots are available, he can cast freely *any* spell in that level range.

 

To put it simple:

- In D&D a mage who knows six "level 3 spells" and that can cast three of them every day needs to choose exactly which ones he want to memorize for the day.

- In Chaos Chronicles a mage who knows six "level 3 spells" and that can cast 3 of them every day doesn't need to memorize crap, he just can cast any of these spells for a max amount of three of them.

 

He's describing Vancian vs. non-Vancian. He doesn't say "I fiercely dislike all magic in D&D." He said "I fiercely dislike the low flexibility on the memorization system in D&D."

 

Is he talking about 4E? Is he talking about D&D Next? Are you?

 

The are two points being debated -

Vancian ("fire and forget")

and

cool downs.

 

You gave me one example that is exactly what I've been saying, and none showing using D&D against D&D. I see another game system's magic mechanics being contrasted to Vancian style mechanics.

 

It's clear what he wants and doesn't want.

 

The fact that Sorcerers in BG2, IWD2, a couple other classes in 3E, and ALL OF 4E, isn't Vancian is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am backing out as soon as cooldowns are confirmed. That's nothing like an IE game. As if people can't handle their wizard not doing something _AWESOME_ every single turn of combat.

 

Ticks me off, actually. Let's hope for the best; maybe he will see the light yet.

I have to agree. If cooldowns are in then I'm out too.

It's hilarious how people love to blame publishers for depriving developers of their creative freedom... and then as soon as they are throwing 50 bucks on the pile, they are already dictating terms in an even more strict way.

 

Let's clear this up, guys: you are giving Obsidian money to give them the resources and freedom to do what they want. Your money aren't buying you any right to dictate the design.

If you want wave your pledge as a ransom, as a way to blackmail them into following your directives... Well, it's your money, feel free to do it. But it's borderline pathetic.

Edited by Tuco Benedicto
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pathetic maybe, but it might be effective.

 

Remember, Obsidian's pitch for this game is substantially if not entirely based on nostalgia for some old games that played in a certain way. It's entirely natural to hold certain expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...