Are they using the Vancian system?

[StrangeVision]

I have had a scout around and I can't find anything definitive that says what system they'll be using for magic users. Is it going to be Vancian or Mana Pool based?

 

I'm really hoping for a mana pool myself, or at least something somewhere in between. I love the AD&D system with the only exception being the vancian casting. I despise it with an ungodly passion. I appreciate that the vancian system gives a more tactical sort of gameplay, which is good, but at the same time it irks me that a supposedly powerful mage can only have a limited number of spells available to him out of his repetoir and even then, might never use them for fear of wasting them.

 

I digress.

 

Is there a definitive answer to this or has it not been announced yet?

[Sabotin]

Have you played a sorcerer? It's like that, except the lower spell levels refresh every encounter instead of every rest. Wizards have a caveat though, they can only pick from the limited number of spells they have in their grimoire (It's a soft limit, you can have multiple books with different spell setups, but there's a cooldown to changing them in combat).

[StrangeVision]

That's actually pretty good set up and a very reasonable compromise. Thanks a lot.

[JFSOCC]

There's no vancian system. I believe there is a per encounter system and a cooldown system.

[teknoman2]

to make it more clear

you have a wizard who can cast up to lv5 spells

your grimoir can hold 3 lv1, 3 lv2, 1 lv3, 2 lv4 and 1 lv5 spells.

your other grimoir can hold 4 lv1, 2 lv2, 2 lv3, 1 lv4 and 1 lv5 spells

that means that you can fill the slots in DnD style with any spell you know and choose which grimoir you want to use

durring battle you may swap books, but you cant cast the spells from the new book for a while

lv1-3 spell reset after combat has ended and you can use them again later.

lv4-5 spells do not reset after battle and you have to rest

it is possible that after a certain point, lv1 spells can be cast any time without the need to reset but i do not know it for a fact

[rjshae]

Yup. Also, from update 36:

 

Wizard

• 1st Level Wizard Spells - Wizards can access all 1st level wizard spells immediately. Unlike other wizard spell levels, the wizard does not need to find scrolls or grimoires to use any 1st level spells. Wizards can cast a fixed number of 1st level spells before they must rest to recover their uses. They can cast any combination of different spells up to the per-rest limit. As wizards gain levels, their 1st level spells will eventually become per-encounter resources.
• Blast - When wizards use any implement (i.e. a wand, rod, or scepter), they generate a Blast on the target. The Blast does a modest amount of damage to all enemies in a Small area around the target (excluding the target).

Thus they will always have the Blast capability even if all their spells are consumed.

[MasterPrudent]

So far posters have described wizards (vancian but with multiple spell books and some per encounter spells), and druids and priests (vancian but more like DnD sorcerers; also with some per encounter abilities) but there are also chanters and ciphers. As far as I know we haven't heard much about how chanters work however we do know that ciphers have a kind of mana pool which they replenish by shooting or stabbing people. You can find out more here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64452-update-65-ciphers/

 

(Edited for clarity.)

Edited December 19, 2013 by MasterPrudent

[teknoman2]

So far posters have described wizards (vancian but with multiple spell books and some per encounter spells), and druids and priests (vancian but more like DnD sorcerers; also with some per encounter abilities) but there are also chanters and ciphers. As far as I know we haven't heard much about how chanters work however we do know that ciphers have a kind of mana pool which they replenish by shooting or stabbing people. You can find out more here: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64452-update-65-ciphers/

 

(Edited for clarity.)

chanters chant verses that, like a bard's song, give bonuses to allies. once they have chanted for some time they get to use a shout that is a powerful spell like ability. the shouts depend on the type of chant. unlike BG bards, they can fight normally and do other stuff while they chant

[Thrasher91604]

The rest vs cooldown property for each spell (or level assignment) seems artificial and unnatural enough that I imagine they will need to iterate the design a few times by testing the whole campaign and rebalancing (shifting across the line) where needed. Unless of course the level 1 spells are so weak (or have no utility) that noone hardly uses them beyond the beginning of the campaign (like cantrips in NWN2). Then it would be mostly Vancian with swappable spell books.

[rjshae]

I'm interpreting the "rest vs. cooldown" as a consequence of improved proficiency with the spells. I.e. as you gain in level, rest requirements become cooldown requirements. In that sense it seems fairly intuitive. But yes, they'll obviously need to balance it, along with all of the other combat elements.

[Thrasher91604]

Curious to know if that will extend beyond first level spells. That'll add even more complication to doing proper balancing. But, personally, balancing is the last thing I worry about in a single player game, but designers seem to be obsessesed with it. It can be a huge resource drain, if the system isn't simple and linear.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Thrasher91604

[Silent Winter]

Curious to know if that will extend beyond first level spells. That'll add even more complication to doing proper balancing. But, personally, balancing is the last thing I worry about in a single player game, but designers seem to be obsessesed with it. It can be a huge resource drain, if the system isn't simple and linear.

I don't think it'll make balancing difficult - in D&D you can end up with more than enough L1 spells-slots to mean you won't run out before your next rest (without even rests-spamming) but those spells are relatively weaker (magic missile being pretty much the only sensible choice at high levels).

So starting out with unlimited or x-per-encounter cantrips and y-per-rest level one spells, you'd later be able to cast unlimited cantrips and L1 spells but only x-per-encounter L4 and y-per-rest L5.

It seems like a good system to me - your wizard is always able to do some magic, is flexible (but see grimoire managing)  but isn't uber-powerful - being limited at high-level spells for any given part of the game.

[Thrasher91604]

The question is whether or not unlimited spelling will advance to highesr level spels. Unlimitted 3.5 cantrips (i.e. level 0) would have no risk of unbalancing. But spammable fireballs or somesuch (i.e. level 3) could easily be unbalancing.

[teknoman2]

The question is whether or not unlimited spelling will advance to highesr level spels. Unlimitted 3.5 cantrips (i.e. level 0) would have no risk of unbalancing. But spammable fireballs or somesuch (i.e. level 3) could easily be unbalancing.

if, speaking in DnD 3.5 terms, by the time you get the unlimited fireballs, most opponents have improved evasion and can easily get away unharmed, it's unimportant if you can cast one or 10 a day. the nature of the spell, prevents you from using it more than 1 or 2 times per fight, due to friendly fire, and even then the chance to actually do damage is small. 

[Thrasher91604]

 

The question is whether or not unlimited spelling will advance to highesr level spels. Unlimitted 3.5 cantrips (i.e. level 0) would have no risk of unbalancing. But spammable fireballs or somesuch (i.e. level 3) could easily be unbalancing.

if, speaking in DnD 3.5 terms, by the time you get the unlimited fireballs, most opponents have improved evasion and can easily get away unharmed, it's unimportant if you can cast one or 10 a day. the nature of the spell, prevents you from using it more than 1 or 2 times per fight, due to friendly fire, and even then the chance to actually do damage is small.

 

Huh? What games were you playing that enemies could evade all fireball damge? That's never happened to me, and I've played all the 3.5 games. Seems you're making stuff up here...

[teknoman2]

the feat evasion, allows you to avoid all damage from aoe if you save, but take full damage if not. improved evasion makes you take half damage if you do not save and avoid all damage if you do. in NWN2, most enemies in the city are thieves if you go on the side of the law and it was really rare for any of my aoe spells to hit them since they had huge reflex rolls and evasion was a class feat. 

so if there is something similar in eternity, you may be able to cast fireballs all day, but you have no guaranteed hits

[Thrasher91604]

That's one game (NWN 2), in one particular area, on one particular path.

NOT, "most opponents"

 

Not all opponents are thieves with improved evasion.

That's a very special case, and not true for all enemies.

 

All enemies have defensive strengths and weaknesses. But they aren't all the same.

[Lephys]

The rest vs cooldown property for each spell (or level assignment) seems artificial and unnatural enough that I imagine they will need to iterate the design a few times by testing the whole campaign and rebalancing (shifting across the line) where needed.

 

That seems like a really strange thing to call it. It's the exact same thing in both instances (per-rest or per-encounter), as neither is a time-based function; just a more frequent versus less frequent trigger/occurrence. You could rest, move 500 feet and fight some stuff, then run back to the campsite and rest again and get all those spells back, OR you could go 15 encounters before resting again. Likewise, you can finish a combat encounter in 15 seconds, or it could take 10 minutes for a tough one.

 

Thus, at a given trigger (the end of an encounter, or the party's resting), you regain certain/all spells, respectively.

 

It's not really a "cooldown," since it's triggered, and not just "wait long enough and something happens." And if we start tossing that word around, newcomers might be confused into thinking that spells are just wait-based.

[Thrasher91604]

That wasn't the point, though.

 

It still a non-linear step between rest based spell regaining vs end of encounter regaining. Especially if there is no where safe to sleep, which is a common challenge players have to deal with.

[Lephys]

Ehh, sort of, but sort of not.

 

Getting through an encounter is just a subset of getting through multiple encounters (with your full amount of per-rest "ammo" and Health).

 

It's very similar to how you get Stamina back at the end of an encounter, but don't get Health back until you've gone to rest.

 

I think I get what you're saying, and yes, it could potentially be done very wrong, but so could anything else. I don't think the usefulness of a given spell that becomes per-encounter instead of per-rest upon a level up somehow just jumps straight from "completely useless" to "BLATANTLY overpowered because you can use this so often!"

 

Sure, when you're Level 20, are those 5 Level 1 spells per encounter going to be super helpful? Probably not at that point. BUT, they're still more useful than 0 Level 1 spells per encounter, and less useful than just getting all your spells back per encounter.

 

So, yeah, making sure it's not ridiculous is a concern, but I hardly think the leap from per-bunch-of-encounters (rest) to per-encounter recovery of certain amounts of certain spells is going to somehow be inherently impossible to balance in any kind of feasible manner.

 

Also, for what it's worth, the point about it not really being a cooldown wasn't me telling you what "the point" was. It was just me making an observation. I didn't think you actually thought the stuff was time-based, and I got your meaning, but other people might not when they see "cooldown," leading to either people completely missing "the point" of your argument, or alltogether getting confused about the system and thinking that it is cooldown based. So, I simply pointed out that maybe referring to the per-encounter recovery as a "cooldown" isn't ultra prudent. That's all. It was just an observation and a suggestion. Not trying to be hostile/antagonistic.

[Thrasher91604]

For someone who has managed to misquote me, create false strawmen, and completely miss my points, you're roleplaying an antogonistic troll pretty well.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Thrasher91604

[Lephys]

For someone who has managed to misquote me, create false strawmen, and completely miss my points, you're roleplaying an antogonistic troll pretty well.

 

???

 

Man, we are obviously on completely different pages here. Any chance you'd like to actually share with the rest of the class what it is that I've so clearly (in your eyes) misunderstood? Or would you like to waste some more time arbitrarily assuming that I'm incapable of simply being mistaken, and am intentionally toying with you on every possible level?

 

If it's the former, I'm all ears. If it's the latter... have fun with that.

 

FYI, a strawman is a deliberately set up false argument to take the place of your own, against which I would then be arguing. Therefore, it's a little bit impossible for me to "completely miss" your points, then somehow deliberately set up dopplegangers of those very same points, against which to argue and win with the advantage of their not actually being your points.

 

Basically, accusing me of missing your points AND using strawman arguments against your points is a little like accusing me of trying to steal something from you I didn't even know you had/owned by replacing it with a perfect replica that I hand-crafted beforehand, based on absolutely no knowledge of the object's existence in the first place.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Lephys

[Thrasher91604]

Well , if you want to have reasonable discussion, first start with rereading my posts, and compare them with what you are implying I said.

 

If not, then just continue to troll on your own.

[Silent Winter]

The question is whether or not unlimited spelling will advance to highesr level spels. Unlimitted 3.5 cantrips (i.e. level 0) would have no risk of unbalancing. But spammable fireballs or somesuch (i.e. level 3) could easily be unbalancing.

I guess it depends on how powerful the PE fireball is and how much enemy-defence is able to mitigate its effectiveness (reflex saves can mitigate AOE damage, I believe - other, larger, slower enemies later in the game might simply have the HP to not be too bothered by a few L3 fireballs).

It might not even be 'unlimited' fireballs but more of them  'per-encounter'.

Edit: and not just fireballs, obviously, I mean this for any spell.  End-game, powerful spells probably won't have a per-encounter number but be limited per-rest.  Mid-level spells will have fewer per-encounter spells and maybe only L1/2 would be unlimited or 'large in number.'

 

I agree that it needs to be balanced (rather than 'this sounds like a good system' and then applying it in a linear way without testing its effectiveness late-game).  I'm pretty sure they're already playtesting segments of the game (Josh spoke of run-throughs (runs-through?) with different party-members in another thread, sorry, can't find the quote) so it seems reasonable that they'll be able to look at it and say "Woah, being able to spam Spell-X is overpowered, let's move its level or reduce the per-encounter 'ammo' for that level."

 

Using BG2 as an example - a high-INT mage with a ring of wizardry might have 9 fireballs to throw (can't remember exact numbers but, it's the idea) - not going to use them all in a single-encounter (as I'd probably hit my own party) and would easily last until next rest.  So its limit is higher than needed.  The difference is in variety of spells available so sub high-CHA sorceror for mage.  Late game, low-level spells become less significant.  They can still help (so your mage isn't useless when out of high-level spells) but they're not game-breaking (except for D&D sorceror/mage being overpowered anyway at high levels - be I think that's a spell-power problem, not spell number -> time-stop, improved alacrity, horrid-wilting etc)

Edit 2: and add in wands of fireball/lightning etc with 50 charges (and can be recharged at any shop) - that would be OP in BG1 (where I think the limit is 10 per wand) but not in BG2.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Silent Winter

[teknoman2]

That's one game (NWN 2), in one particular area, on one particular path.

NOT, "most opponents"

 

Not all opponents are thieves with improved evasion.

That's a very special case, and not true for all enemies.

 

All enemies have defensive strengths and weaknesses. But they aren't all the same.

what i mean is: if enemies are balanced in a way so the effects of spammable spells are reduced, then there is no reason not to have spammable spells.

and i said most opponents, because even with no evasion, in most DnD games after lv10 i rarely found an enemy that failed a save