The (un)usefullness of mages

[ogrezilla]

this game is not using D&D rules, is it? It might take some ideas, but there's no reason to expect this game to limit itself with rules designed for a completely different type of game. The devs will balance things on their own because it makes sense for this game, not because some dungeons and dragons manual told them to.

Edited October 3, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Lady Evenstar]

Becoming slightly useless in a fight when out of spells is part of the trade-off for being very powerful when fully prepared, everything works as intended

 

It will be interesting to know how magic even works in Eternity, who knows, their might not even be a situation when a character is out of spells.

 

There was a long discussion with one of the devs - characters will run out of spells during fights if the idea doesn't radically change before they start programming it.

 

So basically, mages are going to be nerfed like usual, sucks for us who play mage characters...like usual. Also, they said we can play solo, so I would like them to explain how a mage could go through a game solo without being forced to learn something unmagey things. Someone explained mages as glass cannons, they are super powerful, but they are weak physically, that was the trade off. I do agree to a point, but they dont need to be so weak that one hit kills mages (I have had that happen in a few games...I was like, what the hell just happened?!?!?!). They did say mages would wear armour, which I suppose is good, but I an not a fan of them being forced to use swords or other wepons, that is another class all together.

 

So long as they deliver on the super powerful part as well as the physically weak bit. If mages are physically weak and more prone to run out of resources than other classes, their spells should hit much harder than attacks by classes not burdened with similar restrictions.

[TrashMan]

If you don't want your casters running around throwing a bunch of unimpressive pew-pew spells, it's generally best to have them be pretty durn useless when they hit OOM. Why? Because otherwise what reason do you have to conserve your resources and not just throw everything + the kitchen sink at every encounter?

 

Is this directed at me?

Because you and I practicly want the same thing.

 

I DO want for mages to run out of spells and I DO want for their efficiency to plummet.

However, I don't want their efficency to go so low that after that they can't contribute anything at all anymore.

 

No one said to turn a mage into mele-monster (unless he uses spells..but in that case he's only a melle monster as long as he has spells).

 

But if you BUILD him to cover his weakneses then he should be reasonably capable.

 

 

 

 

Part of accomplishing that is in having limitations, so that the various builds have very different approaches to timing, application, resource use and regeneration. This is why casters get OOM while fighters don't get Out of Swings.

 

With fatigue, it would play pretty much teh same as D&D, except that fighters too could grow tired. Not as fast as mages, so they would have plenty of "swings" and they would never really run out (they'd just have penalties).

[DCParry]

Also, for the love of all that is unholy, Gandalf was for all intents and purposes a DEMIGOD.

 

Sigh.

[TrashMan]

Also, for the love of all that is unholy, Gandalf was for all intents and purposes a DEMIGOD.

 

Sigh.

 

Just like high-level D&D mages....

 

* ZING *

Edited October 3, 2012 by TrashMan

[ogrezilla]

Also, for the love of all that is unholy, Gandalf was for all intents and purposes a DEMIGOD.

 

Sigh.

 

Just like high-level D&D mages....

 

* ZING *

except gandalf was way more badass duel wielding a sword and a staff

 

I am hoping the game allows for a wide variety of mages. Old school mages that don't cast often, but when they cast you damn sure notice. Mages that are able to actually hold their own with a weapon. Even mages that are more of a steady stream of mediocre spells if that's anybody's cup of tea.

Edited October 3, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Elerond]

Also, for the love of all that is unholy, Gandalf was for all intents and purposes a DEMIGOD.

 

Sigh.

 

Just like high-level D&D mages....

 

* ZING *

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_(Middle-earth)

 

Gandalf was one of the maiar, creatures which one could call godlike creatures or demigods.

[curryinahurry]

Also, for the love of all that is unholy, Gandalf was for all intents and purposes a DEMIGOD.

 

Sigh.

 

Just like high-level D&D mages....

 

* ZING *

except gandalf was way more badass duel wielding a sword and a staff

 

I am hoping the game allows for a wide variety of mages. Old school mages that don't cast often, but when they cast you damn sure notice. Mages that are able to actually hold their own with a weapon. Even mages that are more of a steady stream of mediocre spells if that's anybody's cup of tea.

 

This is actually something that I too hope for in the game and this thread maybe a good place for people to post ideas for how they might imagine mages in this setting.

 

TrashMan's OP is fine as are his exmples; why not offer an opinion on what you might want in this setting based on your post?

 

How about a mage/ arcane scientist that slings spells and can also create contraptions or make special rounds to fire froma musket for when his spells get depleted

 

Or a mage/ alchemist that can brew potions to lob as crowd control and fire spells into slowed or held mobs

 

Or a mage illusionist build with rogue skills that can cast simulacra type spell, hide inshadows or go invisible, sneak around behind bewildered enemies and deliver backstabs/ trips, cheap shots what have you

[TrashMan]

Also, for the love of all that is unholy, Gandalf was for all intents and purposes a DEMIGOD.

 

Sigh.

 

Just like high-level D&D mages....

 

* ZING *

 

http://en.wikipedia....a_(Middle-earth)

 

Gandalf was one of the maiar, creatures which one could call godlike creatures or demigods.

 

I know all about LOTR. Read everytihng Tolkien wrote.

 

Thou art missing the point.

[Mattku]

I think whatever Obsidian does with mages will work out well. They are not strangers to the genre, and I am sure they will do a good job of balancing the usefullness of each class.

 

I think it may be wise to look at P:E as a chance to do something new with some of the classes, instead of using the same old formula. That being said I am a fan of the D&D class system (even with all its problems) and wouldn't be sad if P:E's class system worked very similar to D&D's.

[1varangian]

As long as you can build a Mage to be able to fight off at least some minions without spells it's all good. Sacrifice a little bit of magic potential to be able to fight a bit.

[smithereen]

As far as I can recall, DA2 was the only game I ever played where mages were arguably not a top-tier class, so I'm not worried about them being (un)useful. It was actually be refreshing for them to have a real weakness again.

[mikayel]

Hahahahaha, I wish I could give Psychoblonde a fist-bump.

 

If scroll-scribing is in the game, then wizards and clerics should NEVER run out of spells, end of story. In ToEE you used your innate spell slots for meta-magic or for high level spells that you didn't want to sacrifice hundreds of XP for. Otherwise, all of your web, magic missile, fireball, haste, enlarge person, etc. was cast from scrolls because they were cheap, you could have a ton of 'em, and more importantly they allowed for many, many more castings of spells.

 

The IE games had no such feature, and neither did NWN I believe so you had to either buy scrolls to cast 'em (most would consider this not-worth it unless they needed a specific gimmick for a fight) or you had to find 'em. In real D&D you make your own arsenal -- that's why in KotC my wizards ran around wielding wands of fireball +1 and would just rain artillery-hell on everyone while the cleric and knight kept the stronger monsters at bay for them to eventually unload more useful spells.

 

As for making a fighter-mage type of character, why not just bring up multi-classing or prestige classes? Eldritch Knight basically made any wizard a good BAB decent HP gish at the cost of one caster level.

 

Word on the street is that Gandalf was a half-celestial double-halfling cleric of Monochromatus, the god of blandness and neutrality.

Edited October 3, 2012 by mikayel

[smithereen]

^^ That only worked in Neverwinter Nights. In real DnD, to become an Eldrich Knight you needed a level of a combat primary class - the class requirement was proficiency with all martial weapons, which you couldn't take as a feat.

[Kitan]

I just hope that there are some interesting non-combat or at least non damage spells... I know there's a lot of spells that don't do much sense in a PC game if it doesn't support the mechanics but spells like leomund's tiny hut, water walking, flying bla... there's just more to a mage than being a walking artillery and lately in games all a wizard could do was bomb the place...

[mikayel]

^^ That only worked in Neverwinter Nights. In real DnD, to become an Eldrich Knight you needed a level of a combat primary class - the class requirement was proficiency with all martial weapons, which you couldn't take as a feat.

 

Oh crap, forgot about the first level delay on spell casting. Yeah, you took a level of a warrior class then you missed a spell-casting level on first Eldritch Knight level. Still, we can modify or change that with a simple house rule like "first level of EK gets casting as well" or a general "all martial weapon" proficiency.

[PsychoBlonde]

As for making a fighter-mage type of character, why not just bring up multi-classing or prestige classes? Eldritch Knight basically made any wizard a good BAB decent HP gish at the cost of one caster level.

 

Actually, you had to give up two, because in order to become an Eldritch Knight you needed proficiency with ALL martial weapons, which you could only get from taking a level in a class with that proficiency--taking the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat gives you proficiency with ONE martial weapon.

 

Whoops nvm, somebody else noticed.

Edited October 4, 2012 by PsychoBlonde

[PsychoBlonde]

I just hope that there are some interesting non-combat or at least non damage spells... I know there's a lot of spells that don't do much sense in a PC game if it doesn't support the mechanics but spells like leomund's tiny hut, water walking, flying bla... there's just more to a mage than being a walking artillery and lately in games all a wizard could do was bomb the place...

 

If only there were more to being a fighter than swinging a sword.

[ogrezilla]

I just hope that there are some interesting non-combat or at least non damage spells... I know there's a lot of spells that don't do much sense in a PC game if it doesn't support the mechanics but spells like leomund's tiny hut, water walking, flying bla... there's just more to a mage than being a walking artillery and lately in games all a wizard could do was bomb the place...

 

If only there were more to being a fighter than swinging a sword.

I hope there is.

[curryinahurry]

I just hope that there are some interesting non-combat or at least non damage spells... I know there's a lot of spells that don't do much sense in a PC game if it doesn't support the mechanics but spells like leomund's tiny hut, water walking, flying bla... there's just more to a mage than being a walking artillery and lately in games all a wizard could do was bomb the place...

 

If only there were more to being a fighter than swinging a sword.

I hope there is.

 

There will be more to fighters. Obsidian has pretty much spelled it out with their descriptions of Soul manipulation. I think some of DS 3 will find its way into this game; not in an action-y way, but in how classes can have powers and abilities that can do more than the class stereotypes.

[Gurkog]

In BG2 the only character that was OP in combat was my Inquisitor Paladin using the legendary great sword. He was virtually immune to all magic because of his high saves, virtually immune to melee because of stupid high armor, could dispel any enhancements that might make an enemy able to hurt him, could walk through pretty much any trap unscathed, but he had 3 weaknesses that I can recall... mindflayer insta kill, maze/imprison and can't open locks. I don't know how Paladins faired after that game, but it was kind of stupid how easy it was to do most of BG2 with him.

[Lord Lierdan Firkraag]

In BG2 the only character that was OP in combat was my Inquisitor Paladin using the legendary great sword. He was virtually immune to all magic because of his high saves, virtually immune to melee because of stupid high armor, could dispel any enhancements that might make an enemy able to hurt him, could walk through pretty much any trap unscathed, but he had 3 weaknesses that I can recall... mindflayer insta kill, maze/imprison and can't open locks. I don't know how Paladins faired after that game, but it was kind of stupid how easy it was to do most of BG2 with him.

 

In BG2 you are a Demigod. (starting the game with a level 7 char seems a little bit unusual isn't it?) And with TOB, unbelieavable items appeares, remember Crom Faeyr? 25 str and +5 thaco? Anyways, later in the game, with companions like Minsc and Korgan, battles become easier and closer to the end, game turnes out to be a spiritual journey. Protagonist is overpowered but enemies are overpowered too. Maze is a brutal spell, imprison ends you up in morgue. Those are not little flaws for a BG2 char. There are lots of creatures that can cast maze/imprison. (Of course, if you find The Cloak of Reflection, spells will not be a problem for you) And Mind Flayers/Beholders are really challenging for a paladin. The fortress of underdark is pretty rough to play. Moving forward is not easy. I crawled a lot in TOB. It is really difficult. 

 

The only thing broken in BG2 was sorceress. There wasn't even a main attribute to build up a sorceress. Almost every char with average attributes (like 9 int, 10 wis, 10 charisma) could become so powerful. I played BG2 with a sorceress some time ago and game seemed clearly easy. At later levels, sorceress becomes a godess.

[Bonecrusher]

In the last few discissions I noticed an irritatinbly high number of people who think that mages, once low on spells, are a total dead weight.

 

 

Lets for example take your average D&D spellcaster. Are spells his main thing? Yes. But that isn't the only thing he can do. The thing holding mack mages the most is their low amount of HP* and poeple not using them to their full potential

 

*something I have campaigning for from day 1 is that health is determined by CON alone and class has no bearing on it. This would make mages far more survivable in combat as tehy could have as much HP as a fighter.

 

 

One thing to decide when building a character (of any class) is what approach to take.

- focus on maximizing it's strengths

- focus on minimizing weakneses

- balanced approach

 

Now, msot peoepl I know go for the first. Got a fighter? All the equipment and skilsl will be there to make him even stronger and more durable! Got a mage? All equipment and skills/feats go to makeing him a stronger spellcaster.

 

That is a valid aproach, but overspecialization is overrated. It works wonderfull as long as everything is going according to plan. But if it doesn't, if you loose that super-specialized tank - suddenly there's total chaos.

 

Class system of D&D (or similar systems) ties players' hands.

It is easy to say "don't overspecialize your mage, give combat skills", but especially D&D 2e (e.g. Baldur's Gate) forces players to overspecialize.

 

Think about BG2, if you want to use high powered spells at the end game, you need to overspecialize your mage and go magic all the way. Some people use kensai/mage, but even for it, you need to follow a specific formula. Also, dual class supresses your previous class. Dual class system's other handicap is, you get a 10/10 (two weak classes) instead of 20 (one strong class) level of character.

 

Skill based systems like Elder Scrolls, Ultima (Online), World Of Darkness, help the mages (or magi, if you prefer) to get some combat skills. For example, if the system allows you to maximize 5 skills, select 3-4 magic skills and 1-2 combat skills. I like to play fire mage / shaman who can also fight like a warrior (Natsu from Fairy Tail, Hitsugaya from Bleach, etc...). But in class systems, if you select more than one class, you can not maximize your skills in desired tree/path.

 

What I mean is,

in D&D 3e, If you make a 15th lvl Sorcerer / 5th lvl Fighter, you will not know/cast 8th and 9th level spells like a 20th lvl Sorcerer, and you will not fight like a 20th lvl Fighter (your base attack bonus will be +12/+2 instead of +20/+15/+10/+5)

However, in Skyrim, you can combine pure mage ( Alteration, Conjuration, Destruction, Restoration, Enchanting) with pure warrior (Archery, Block, Heavy Armor, One Handed, Smithing) and get a warrior/mage (One Handed, Heavy Armor, Destruction, Conjuration, Restoration) who can max both Destruction (like a pure mage) and One Handed (like a pure warrior) skills.

[Chairchucker]

 (starting the game with a level 7 char seems a little bit unusual isn't it?)

 

Not really, no. (The hint as to the reason it is not that strange is in the '2' part of the name of BG2.)

 

Also, I remember hearing it suggested that the most powerful character type one could make was a Kensai-Mage. Kensai's lack of armour was offset by having stoneskin and mage armour permanently cast, and then you just pick exclusively spells that make your character better at chopping people in pieces, or stripping enemy mages of their defenses. Something like that.

[Brother Pain]

I hope wizards won't overshadow most other classes like they tend to
do in D&D. I'd rather have them comparable to fighters in power and
utility than having them be completely overpowered until they run out of
spells.

 

How many in here prefer FallOut 1&2 over FallOut 3&NV?

 

I defenitely preferred the original Fallouts over the realtime 3d games.