Magic Mechanics that annoy you

[JFSOCC]

friendly fire from non-aoe spells.

[Ralewyn]

I personally despise Vancian magic for being un-intuitive, unsatisfying, and requiring heavy amounts of bookkeeping, but most of all I despise it because Vancian magic demands the player make choices about their abilities for situations they have little to no information of. A choice that isn't informed in a game isn't a choice and it isn't fun or satisfying, it's just annoying. Vancian magic explicitly punishes players for not knowing what the game is going to throw at them in a given dungeon or on a given adventure where unless they're reloading a save or using a guide they shouldn't know exactly what the game is going to throw at them. This makes Vancian magic even more of a problem in pen & paper RPGs, but I still find it really annoying in cRPGs for how its power usually scales and the kind of gameplay it generally encourages. As a 5th level mage in Planescape: Torment I've stabbed a good 200 times, and cast a good 10 spells tops. I'm not a mage, I'm a walking corpse with a knife that sparkles in a funny way every so often.

[Farbautisonn]

I personally despise Vancian magic for being un-intuitive, unsatisfying, and requiring heavy amounts of bookkeeping, but most of all I despise it because Vancian magic demands the player make choices about their abilities for situations they have little to no information of. A choice that isn't informed in a game isn't a choice and it isn't fun or satisfying, it's just annoying. Vancian magic explicitly punishes players for not knowing what the game is going to throw at them in a given dungeon or on a given adventure where unless they're reloading a save or using a guide they shouldn't know exactly what the game is going to throw at them. This makes Vancian magic even more of a problem in pen & paper RPGs, but I still find it really annoying in cRPGs for how its power usually scales and the kind of gameplay it generally encourages. As a 5th level mage in Planescape: Torment I've stabbed a good 200 times, and cast a good 10 spells tops. I'm not a mage, I'm a walking corpse with a knife that sparkles in a funny way every so often.

 

Disagree. Requires planning, sure, but if you end up in a situation where you really *need* a certain spell you have usually been given clues to it, if your DM is decent. You dont fully load up on fireballs if youre going to be crawling in a dungeon where you're searching for a lich, nor do you load up finger of death if you're defending a village from a horde of goblins en route.

[Tamerlane]

friendly fire from non-aoe spells.

****ing lightning bolt!

[Hertzila]

Disagree. Requires planning, sure, but if you end up in a situation where you really *need* a certain spell you have usually been given clues to it, if your DM is decent. You dont fully load up on fireballs if youre going to be crawling in a dungeon where you're searching for a lich, nor do you load up finger of death if you're defending a village from a horde of goblins en route.

 

"...If your DM is decent..." being the key here. We won't have a DM in this game, or in any CRPG for that matter.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Hertzila

[Farbautisonn]

Disagree. Requires planning, sure, but if you end up in a situation where you really *need* a certain spell you have usually been given clues to it, if your DM is decent. You dont fully load up on fireballs if youre going to be crawling in a dungeon where you're searching for a lich, nor do you load up finger of death if you're defending a village from a horde of goblins en route.

 

"...If your DM is decent..." being the key here. We won't have a DM in this game, or in any CRPG for that matter.

Actually we do. The writers of the game. If they leave me completely baffled storywise without a chance to anticipate just how hard an encounter is (for instance), then they have failed in storywriting and they break suspension of disbelief. Then I go hunting for more mistakes. Its what happened when I played ME3 and FO3. Even if Fo3 wasnt nearly as bad as ME3 it still left me with "what the fu.ck" moments when I held it up to the lore I allready knew.

[Hertzila]

Actually we do. The writers of the game. If they leave me completely baffled storywise without a chance to anticipate just how hard an encounter is (for instance), then they have failed in storywriting and they break suspension of disbelief. Then I go hunting for more mistakes. Its what happened when I played ME3 and FO3. Even if Fo3 wasnt nearly as bad as ME3 it still left me with "what the fu.ck" moments when I held it up to the lore I allready knew.

 

I partially disagree on the grounds that the writers can't anticipate everything the player might do without infinite resources and limiting the player to a scale the writer's can anticipate is the exact wrong way to go. The writers can't be (nearly as) dynamic as a DM can be and that will lead to problems with the Vancian magic system.

 

I do agree that on the more major instances it's the developer's fault if we can't anticipate what is approximately going to happen there (unless that's the whole point).

[Shadenuat]

I despise it because Vancian magic demands the player make choices about their abilities for situations they have little to no information of

Vancian system does't do anything of that. It's encounter balance, enemy numbers and how reconnaissance is handled in game which affects player's knowledge of how he should fill the slots.

Even then, there is no problem whatsoever in creating a multipurposed set of spells. Noone forces you to memorise three fireballs, when you can memorise Fireball, Haste and Dispel Magic instead.

Actually, that *is* a whole point of strategy there - balancing a battle unit (and party is a battle unit) to be multi-purposeful and able to handle what game/DM throws at them. Which means making decisions, and either making everyone a generalist or using a bunch of specialists. And it is an interesting strategic game in itself when playing a spellcaster - to create your own set of spells to match any scenario.

 

What's with all the people having problems with meeting unexpected or troubling enemies suddenly? What, everyone've read Sawyer's posts about resting system and put it on a pedestal as an undisputed truth?

 

I can give a hint how to fix trouble with filling slots: remove stupid next-gen cutscenes which trigger when you step on them and instantly teleport you into bunch of enemies and forced dialogue (NWN2). Then you could easely scout a dungeon with thief and prepare spells for every encounter you'll face. Unshakle player from scripted, forceful mess which games love to throw at players today "for the immersion", and we can get strategy back into our RPGs.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Shadenuat

[PsychoBlonde]

 

Buffs - My main problem here is the time spent applying buffs on a regular basis after rest/before battle/before conversation/pick you system. Can we have some buff-dedicated slots that would refresh automatically as long as I have the spell memorized? I had an idea that would work in BG - Imagine sacrificing one spell slot to have one spell permanently(within limits) activated. I would gladly sacrifice a LVL1 and LVL2 slots, to have for example Shield and Blur always active.

 

Because this would be stupidly OP. There's a reason why the Persistent Spell metamagic effect requires you to take TWO feats, cannot be gotten AT ALL until like 16th level, and raises the level of the spell SIX LEVELS. I grant you that other games have always-on buffs (Dragon Age), but even then it's no simple matter of giving up a low level spell slot or two, it means losing anywhere from 10% to 70% of your entire spellcasting pool. Besides, remember all the casters who insta-apply like 4 effects due to that spell you can memorize that instantly casts 3 or 4 buffs? USE THAT. It is in the game for a reason.

 

All spells, including buffs, need to have their cost/benefit value tuned to the overall game. Duration is part of that calculation. If you don't like it, build your casters not to be buff-reliant. There are ways to do this in every RPG I've ever played. Don't want to cast mage armor all the time? Play an armored caster. (Which you will be able to do.) Or be smart about keeping your caster out of the line-of-fire.

 

Or they can do what Arcanum did, and force you to raise a stat that doesn't directly benefit casters very much in order to maintain more than one spell at a time. Are there lots of ways to tune this stuff? Sure. Asking for freebies is not one of them.

 

]Magic balance[/b] - I admit this is a very difficult thing to do, but I would like to see it get some attention. My problem here is the difference between melee classes and magic classes in regards to their hindrance in the world. Through the dozens of RPGs I have played as a caster, you find more than one enemy that is immune or extremely resistant to your magic however you never encounter an enemy that would be immune to melee. Of course there are exceptions to both sides (but these are rare and usually include very powerfull enemies that would have both immunities) however I feel that the enemies that are immune to mgic outweigh hose that are immune to melee.

 

NEVER encounter an enemy that is immune to melee?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I shall remind you, sir, of why Breach was my MOST FAVORITIST SPELL EVAR in Baldur's Gate 2? Because it got rid of all those damn casters who put up Protection from Missiles and Protection from Weapons and Stoneskin as their first bloody combat action. My GAWD that was annoying. Let's compare that to the creatures who were immune to magic: Arcane oozes. I grant you, liches are immune to spells below, like, 4th level. Rakshasa are immune to spells below 8th level--but you could one-hit kill them with blessed bolts from even the most mediocre crossbowman in the game, so that was not so bad. Golems are immune to all but 2 spells apiece--but you still got those 2 spells. (That and golems are quite rare--what made them awful was not their magic resistance but the fact that you also needed specific weapon types to hurt them.) A lot of critters have spell resistance, but that's not immunity to magic. And a lot more have immunity to specific effects, but that's not immunity to magic either. When mages have 300 times the versatility of non-mages, you have to balance that by forcing them to be more versatile. Besides, mages CAN pick up darts or a sling with bullets and still be useful when their magic isn't working. What are the melee shlubs supposed to do when their SWORDS aren't working? That's the only trick they got. And it still didn't stop Black Isle from spamming the game with casters covered in protection from missiles and protection from weapons AND stoneskin. Bojemoi. You could play BG2 perfectly well with an all-caster party (I did.) The converse . . . not so much. (Although I'm sure at least one crazy person somewhere did it.)

 

What I'm hoping they do is to not have effects in the game against which there is ONE defensive or offensive solution: a spell. At no point should there be a situation like "you must have a caster with Breach memorized in order to hurt this foe". At no point should there be a situation like "you must cast Negative Energy Protection on every party member in order to have a chance of beating this area". And no Arcane Oozes, either.

 

2nd edition D&D just had too many freakin' on/off switches. I have no problem with things being of variable effectiveness given the nature of what you're fighting. That can be a lot of fun. I don't even mind *occasional* complete immunities as long as they make sense and are very limited in scope--if it lives in lava, yes, it makes sense that it'll be immune to fire, or, at least, immune to any fire the party has any hope of producing. I can deal with that. Every mob and his brother being immune to half a dozen different effect types? OH HELL NO.

[jethro]

Yes, to hell with the Vancian system. No fight can be tailored to challenge your party fully because the designers must take into account that the party could be low on spells.

Nobody learns spells for emergencies (like "remove curse") because in 95% of the fights you don't need it. Instead you sell out to the system and learn 8 magic missiles.

Learning the right spells beforehand can only be done if you know who you are fighting. Most of the time you don't know. And even should you know, how often do you really make the effort to tailor your spells when you afterwards have to change it back to your "set for all occasions"?

 

Contrast this to a mana system with slow regeneration in fights: You have all your spells available, even the seldom used. So when that one time comes when you would need the cool "turn stairs to slide" spell, you really have it.

Yes, there is the danger that a few spells turn out to be the most effective, but the same happens in the Vancian system.

 

------------------------

 

I'm playing NWN2 MotB at the moment and what I really don't like: You can't see any spell effects on enemies. And even the log often doesn't tell you whether an enemy is affected or immune.

Edited November 9, 2012 by jethro

[Tamerlane]

Can't be arsed to look up the quote, but Josh Sawyer has specifically said that he doesn't want encounters where you have to have a +3 weapon or a certain spell or whatever to do damage in an encounter.

 

...

 

I think. ****, maybe I should look up the quote to be sure. But I'm 99% sure he said that.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Tamerlane

[Ralewyn]

I despise it because Vancian magic demands the player make choices about their abilities for situations they have little to no information of

Vancian system does't do anything of that. It's encounter balance, enemy numbers and how reconnaissance is handled in game which affects player's knowledge of how he should fill the slots.

Even then, there is no problem whatsoever in creating a multipurposed set of spells. Noone forces you to memorise three fireballs, when you can memorise Fireball, Haste and Dispel Magic instead.

Actually, that *is* a whole point of strategy there - balancing a battle unit (and party is a battle unit) to be multi-purposeful and able to handle what game/DM throws at them. Which means making decisions, and either making everyone a generalist or using a bunch of specialists. And it is an interesting strategic game in itself when playing a spellcaster - to create your own set of spells to match any scenario.

 

If you just end up creating your own set of spells to make yourself useful in any situation, then why is Vancian magic being used in the first place when you could just build that set of spells as a sorcerer or something? The theory behind why it's better than just having some spells that you can cast whenever is it gives you a bigger toolbox to solve problems with, but when your response when faced with not being able to forsee a specialized problem happening is to limit the toolbox to a safe standby loadout, what's the point?

 

What's with all the people having problems with meeting unexpected or troubling enemies suddenly? What, everyone've read Sawyer's posts about resting system and put it on a pedestal as an undisputed truth?

 

This is a belief I've held for years, thank you. I accepted it when I was young because I figured "Hey D&D's supposed to be the best game I guess." Then I played lots and lots of other games with lots and lots of other magic systems, and I can say with confidence that aside from sorcery in Exalted, Vancian magic is the most clunky, obtuse and un-fun magic system I've ever personally experienced.

 

You're arguing that other sections of the game are failing and making Vancian magic not work but you're neglecting the fact that these are sections of the game that need to work only because Vancian magic exists. "It doesn't work because encounters aren't balanced with regards to Vancian magic." Do you think it's a small task or a necessary one to balance any encounter against one or more characters having access to any possible combination of roughly half the spells in the entire game?

The truth is a lot of these things the game is failing to deliver on would be non-issues with a different form of magic that would be much easier to design around. The designer can build encounters towards you having a specific rough range of spells that he can assume you have access to within specific parameters because you don't have to sleep to regain them, and doesn't have to instead telegraph every encounter to you in advance in detail so you can build your specialized set of spells.

[Farbautisonn]

If people just want a "bigger toolbox" why not go with a bethsoft esque skill system where you can wear plate, dualyield, pickpocket and cast fireballs at the same time? Thats all the freedom in the world and the ultimate toolbox?

 

Wouldnt make much sense to me as Hawkins might be a brilliant mathematician and physcisist, I kinda suspect he is an extremely crappy linebacker.

[Shadenuat]

when your response when faced with not being able to forsee a specialized problem happening is to limit the toolbox to a safe standby loadout, what's the point?

The point is an amount of angles you could approach an encounter with. You can carry a standard loadout and rely on tactics and timing, you can specialize and rely on companions to fill the gaps, or you can try and scout ahead and then prepare better. You can even savescum, if finding the best outcome for specific battle pleases you.

 

My real problem with Vancian system is that it's completely lore-unfriendly. I'm not sure how exactly it can be solved, possibly with ingredients or some other features to better flesh out spell preparation and bring that part to life in the game.

I'm not even a zealous fan of slots, but mindlessly bashing Vancian spellcasting and puting all the sins of IE and Aurora engines games spellcasting on it is a poor way of approaching the problem, especially concidering the fact that IE games are generally praised exactly because of their complicated magical duels and rich repertoire of spells - a success which yet has to be repeated.

 

You're arguing that other sections of the game are failing and making Vancian magic not work but you're neglecting the fact that these are sections of the game that need to work only because Vancian magic exists.

These sections of the game I mentioned - mostly scouting surroundings and using party skills to "be aware" in conjunction with spellcasting options - need work regardless of magic system.

 

The designer can build encounters towards you having a specific rough range of spells that he can assume you have access to within specific parameters because you don't have to sleep to regain them

The designer can also build encounters or whole dungeons using limited rest options as well, that's just an option of either using additional resource player has to manipulate in a dungeon layout or not. Designer can even build encounters assuming player's characters are always at full health, which would make things even easier, but do we really need that?

And do we really need to overdramatise this "telegraphing" **** so much? Obviously it's more pleasant for some players to think exclusively within the realm of a single encounter and for designers to design the same, but I see no strategic value in a design of that sort.

[PsychoBlonde]

If people just want a "bigger toolbox" why not go with a bethsoft esque skill system where you can wear plate, dualyield . . .

 

 

Dualyield?

 

Is that, like, one nuke in each hand?

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Sorry. I'll go now.

[Gatt9]

You're arguing that other sections of the game are failing and making Vancian magic not work but you're neglecting the fact that these are sections of the game that need to work only because Vancian magic exists. "It doesn't work because encounters aren't balanced with regards to Vancian magic." Do you think it's a small task or a necessary one to balance any encounter against one or more characters having access to any possible combination of roughly half the spells in the entire game?

The truth is a lot of these things the game is failing to deliver on would be non-issues with a different form of magic that would be much easier to design around. The designer can build encounters towards you having a specific rough range of spells that he can assume you have access to within specific parameters because you don't have to sleep to regain them, and doesn't have to instead telegraph every encounter to you in advance in detail so you can build your specialized set of spells.

 

The other side of the coin is that now the designer has to design around the fact that you have access to virtually every spell at any given time without restriction, which makes many challenges redundant at best.

 

A wizard locked door or chest isn't much of a challenge when a caster can spam magic missles one minute, knocks the next, without any tradeoff. Prismatic Wall/Sphere is completely pointless when the mage will always have the right combination to breach it at all times. These situations exist and present challenges only because of the limited resources found in Vancian systems, and become trivial once you remove that limitation.

 

Many of these instances exist. Blind/Poison/Disease/Stun/Sleep/Hold, they're all much less of a challenge if your spell caster(s) can just access the solution at all times without any tradeoffs. Wall of Fire/Ice/Stone become redundant if your caster can always counter.

 

Vancian's purpose is many fold, and there are major tradeoffs and costs to open spell systems.

 

I'm not wholely against it, but to argue that Vancian has no redeeming qualities and that open systems are strictly better isn't correct. Open spell systems have many downsides to them, at least as many as Vancian does if not more.

[Ralewyn]

I'm not wholely against it, but to argue that Vancian has no redeeming qualities and that open systems are strictly better isn't correct. Open spell systems have many downsides to them, at least as many as Vancian does if not more.

 

I'm not necessarily trying to argue that there's absolutely no merit in Vancian magic, if that's what it seems like then that's my bad. I've just never liked the sort of gameplay that Vancian magic often promotes in games I've used it.

[Kissamies]

I've always disliked the Vancian system. With all the D&D adaptations, I have learned to live with it, but I have never really liked it. I guess it has some redeeming qualities when the game system has a huge library of spells and player has acces to most of them. Choosing the spells to use beforehand is slightly less bewildering than having to browse a huge library in middle of action, but it is still clunky and unfun. I prefer to have less, but more adaptable spells and some other system like fatigue points, for example.

 

With buffs I would like less and more adaptable as well. Could have them on/off style as well. I hate casting a huge number of buffs before battle and also having to worry when they wear out.

[Farbautisonn]

If people just want a "bigger toolbox" why not go with a bethsoft esque skill system where you can wear plate, dualyield . . .

 

 

Dualyield?

 

Is that, like, one nuke in each hand?

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Sorry. I'll go now.

Youre going to hell for that bit. :D.

[Chilloutman]

I like idea of ingrediences AND cast times. I can imagine that when caster grows in levels he should not spend too much ingerdients/non on low level spells and can cast them almost instantly, but then when it comes to casting finger of death user have to stand still, read from the spell book mumbling dark rituals and using rare ingredients for such valuable spell and your party should protect that wizard for that time or he will have to start over if he is interupted. Of course, high level spells should have cooldown to protect from spamming them infinetly. This could be really great as different spells would require different ingredients. I quite like casting system in Ultima Online. There should be magic shop selling ingredients but the most valuable should be spare and you should probably go hunting these things. Need toad eyes? swap are it is. Need sulphur? lets go party to volcano. This can even 'force' user to not spend valuable ingredients on pathetic foes and resting after each fight

[ncguthwulf]

Instead of focusing on what I don’t like, I want to focus on what I do like:

 

1) I like spells having a level

The reason for this is that it creates a strategic decision on how much you want to commit to an encounter. For example, if your character has 3 direct damage spells, a low level one that she can cast 10 times, a mid level one that she can cast 5 times and a high level one she can cast 2 times, you have to make intelligent decisions as to how to break that up in a fight. Pepper the goblins because the fighter has the ogre, or focus fire the ogre and let the fighter tangle with the sea of goblins?

2) I like having combinations

I like the idea of having a spell that say, soaks an area in oil slowing down my opponents movement and then another spell that does fire damage, but when combined, a greater effect occurs.

3) I like a mana based system over memorization, but I like having some form of restriction on how many of my abilities I can use at once.

What I mean by this is that of your repertoire of spells you should only be able to access a certain number at a time based on some sort of rest and recover mechanic (sleep 8 hours, whatever). But once you have chosen which spells you want to use, you have a mana type system that limits how many spells you can use in a given battle but that recovers fast enough that you don’t have fight, rest, fight, rest, fight, rest style game play. Or even worse, fight, burn all spells, play rest of the dungeon level as a really low attack bonus crossbow wielding mage who ran out of spells.

4) I like systems that are not straightforward, magic should be complex.

I think magic should be deep and complex. There are games, like diablo, where the magic should be easy and straightforward and fast because that is the pace of the game. For an RPG I want complexity, reagents that boost certain spells, spell combinations, spells that require certain weapons to be held in hand to be cast, spells that suck unless used in specific conditions or vs specific foes, spell resistance, buffs that require you to do some real cost/benefit analysis.

5) I like having some sort of skill or talent system that allows your mage to specialize.

Choose the Healer’s Blessing skill to give you a 20% reduction in the mana cost of healing spells and a 15% increase in the cost of direct damage spells. Or choose a armored mage type skill that allows you to wear plate but all of your ranged direct damage spells have their range reduced to touch, etc etc etc.

[Delterius]

I think DAO sustained spells and abilities are a great design. You sacrifice a portion of your mana pool (eg 20%) to constantly keep an aura or buff. I don't know what magic system PE will have but I will definitely support "activate and constantly keep at a cost" type of spells.

 

Magic balance is tricky. In IE games mages are generally the kings of battlefield with other classes being cannon fodder. The infamous mage duels encounters in which the outcome of a fight is decided mostly by spell casters. Personally I find it awesome yet it didn't seem very balanced

 

Well, since the IE games were a party-based RPG, I'd say that balance is more of a matter of making sure all/most classes have a clear appeal, not that all classes are equally powerful - which would run afoul of homogenizing the classes. When it comes to mage duels, spellcasters are most useful, true, but non-spellcasters aren't exactly helpless (and come to think of it, non-spellcasters are decidedly rare) - especially since they have magic of their own (consummables and such).

 

Also, a nitpick. DA:O didn't do sustainable auras that way, instead of reserving a percentage of your Mana, there was a fixed value. This may sound minor, but percentages put a cap on the amount of auras you can sustain. Percentages came with DA2.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Delterius

[Gatt9]

3) I like a mana based system over memorization, but I like having some form of restriction on how many of my abilities I can use at once.

What I mean by this is that of your repertoire of spells you should only be able to access a certain number at a time based on some sort of rest and recover mechanic (sleep 8 hours, whatever). But once you have chosen which spells you want to use, you have a mana type system that limits how many spells you can use in a given battle but that recovers fast enough that you don’t have fight, rest, fight, rest, fight, rest style game play. Or even worse, fight, burn all spells, play rest of the dungeon level as a really low attack bonus crossbow wielding mage who ran out of spells.

 

Not trying to argue with you, I just feel compelled to state that what you describe is the result of CRPG's only partially implementing the RPG systems.

 

Vancian systems were recognized very early on in AD&D's life to have a key weakness: The Mage's spell limitations could impede design. It was very difficult to implement a frenetic adventure without eventually relegating the Wizard to a sling and boredom. Worse, Random Encounters during resting with a spent mage could end up lopsided if they were balanced for a full party but the Mage & Cleric were out of resources.

 

The solution was the various Rods, Staves, Wands, Scrolls, and a couple jewelry items. Through these, the Mage was permitted to have backup resources to keep him relevant, or be prepared for unexpected situations (Like a knock spell just in case the thief really does suck as much as you thought he did!)

 

CRPG's have never had this. Mainly as a result of being *really* bad about implementing a rest system. A good implementation of a rest system wouldn't permit the party to Rest Spam, but since the early days of CRPG's, no one's ever bothered to maintain even a "Once per 8 hours" limit.

 

Worse, almost no CRPG's implement any sort of time requirement. A Damsel in Distress will remain in distress while you take 4 years to wander the countryside. An impending demonic invasion threatening to overrun the land will never actually happen until you accidently talk to the right person (One of my favorite examples of bad design, Oblivion. The best solution to the main quest is to never talk to a key character, because then not a single demon will invade, and you win)

 

As a result, CRPG's don't put any pressure on the party to move, and just let the party Rest Spam. Because of this broken mechanic throughout the history of CRPG's, the need for accessory items for magic-users/clerics never becomes visible.

 

So what I'm saying is that the CRPG genre has propigated a broken mechanic, which in turn causes the solution to your concern to never become necessary as a component of CRPG's. Few people are ever interested in Wands, Scrolls, etc, because they can just rest on a whim. In fact, in most CRPG's, you pretty much have to actively intend to have your mage fight without spells, because there's really never any reason for him to not have his spells (Even in a mana based system).

 

I believe that if we actually fixed the broken mechanic, Resting, other mechanics would fall back in line as they are in RPG's.

[Atreides]

I remember the thrill of running on low health and spells to the next safehouse, or risking ambushes when I tried to rest in the IE games. However, what else does resting for health/spells add to the game, if players view it as a minor inconvenience that stops them from continuing on?

 

That's the reason I'm leaning towards a mana system like that Dragon Age that lets me get on with the game. A proper rest is still relevant if the party can only shake off severe injuries or penalties accumulated from rest. On spammable "Knock" that makes rogues redundant, I crafted wands with 99 "Knock" charges anyway as soon as I could.

 

Quick aside on mana/spells, I'd like the ability to empower my spells by spending more mana on it or cannibalising other spells. If I was desperate enough or needed to push damage through high resistance, I'd put everything into my last throw of the dice.

[Umberlin]

Hey

 

Even though we have no specific information regarding how magic system will exactly work, I have been thinking about what magic systems I would like to see get some attention.

 

Buffs - My main problem here is the time spent applying buffs on a regular basis after rest/before battle/before conversation/pick you system. Can we have some buff-dedicated slots that would refresh automatically as long as I have the spell memorized? I had an idea that would work in BG - Imagine sacrificing one spell slot to have one spell permanently(within limits) activated. I would gladly sacrifice a LVL1 and LVL2 slots, to have for example Shield and Blur always active.

 

DAoC, and other RPGs out there, used a consentration system to address such issues. You could only maintain so many buffs at once, and thus you had to pick and choose which buffs were applied, and to who, intelligently. The consentration system made it so that the effects of buffs lasted until the character chose to remove them from those they'd applied them to, however, if the character that did the buffing died, all buffs would be lost.

 

In terms of buff effects . . . I like a more active effects, rather than passive % effects.

 

]Magic balance[/b] - I admit this is a very difficult thing to do, but I would like to see it get some attention. My problem here is the difference between melee classes and magic classes in regards to their hindrance in the world. Through the dozens of RPGs I have played as a caster, you find more than one enemy that is immune or extremely resistant to your magic however you never encounter an enemy that would be immune to melee. Of course there are exceptions to both sides (but these are rare and usually include very powerfull enemies that would have both immunities) however I feel that the enemies that are immune to mgic outweigh hose that are immune to melee.

 

What other magic system do you feel you would like to have removed/added/adjusted?

 

D&D actually did this, to an extent, mundane weapons wouldn't work on some enemies. And you had different levels of magical weapons, that acted as a melee weapons ability to overcome certain defenses - as such a +4 magical sword might not work on an opponent, but a +5 magical sword would. So your melee could have issues with such things, much like the magic user.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Umberlin