Spell interruption in Pillars of Eternity will not cause loss of the spell

[Infinitron]

A quote from Josh Sawyer: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3593502&userid=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post424444483
 

 

EDIT: But is a spell wasted entirely if it gets interrupted?

 

Currently, no. If a spell or ability doesn't go off, it isn't lost but it has to be started over.

 
I personally don't have much of a problem with this, since I don't think "spell loss" was a super-important mechanic in the Infinity Engine games and it was probably overly punitive (the mage already got hit AND failed to cast a spell, he doesn't need to lose it too on top of that).

 

That said, this does remove the ability to "drain" an enemy mage of all his spells (by interrupting them all) and turn him into a sitting duck who can be safely ignored until the rest of the enemy party has been dispatched. Some people might miss that.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Infinitron

[Sensuki]

Yeah, that's very 4E.

[IndiraLightfoot]

And I reckon it sounds great. I mean, no more wobble wands, and interruption in the real sense., where you just have to have a go again, not loose the whole shazaam.

[Infinitron]

A possible compromise here would be to make the interrupted spell unavailable for the rest of the fight in which it was interrupted only. That way you still achieve the tactical "spell loss", but without inflicting a lasting strategic penalty on the mage who was interrupted.

 

A further variation on this would be an "interruption cooldown" that makes the interrupted spell unavailable for a limited time period that you can wait out.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Infinitron

[Sensuki]

That is spell loss for encounter spells.

 

I don't care if people don't lose their spells, I'm just glad that hit reactions are back in (if weirdly tied to attributes).

Edited January 16, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

I don't think it makes much difference. If you're able to hammer a spellcaster hard and fast enough to interrupt all his spells, it's highly unlikely he would be standing at that point anyway. I don't recall ever having actually had your "sitting duck" situation.

 

I do hope counterspells in some form are in though. That would be different.

[DCParry]

A possible compromise here would be to make the interrupted spell unavailable for the rest of the fight in which it was interrupted only. That way you still achieve the tactical "spell loss", but without inflicting a lasting strategic penalty on the mage who was interrupted.

 

A further variation on this would be an "interruption cooldown" that makes the interrupted spell unavailable for a limited time period that you can wait out.

I think an interruption cool down would be a good mechanic, with the duration dependent on the difference or failure range between the concentration and penetration roles. 

 

This might add some interesting mechanics, especially if there are certain abilities that have extra penetration (teehee) that you can use to try to delay certain enemy spells or abilities.

[Sensuki]

Post Edited

Edited January 17, 2014 by Fionavar
Homophobia

[Infinitron]

I don't think it makes much difference. If you're able to hammer a spellcaster hard and fast enough to interrupt all his spells, it's highly unlikely he would be standing at that point anyway. I don't recall ever having actually had your "sitting duck" situation.

 

Well, "sitting duck" may have been an extreme example. But there was some satisfaction in the IE games when you interrupted a powerful spell with the knowledge that it was definitely NOT coming back.

[DCParry]

Cooldowns R Gay.com

 

Thank you for your comment. I quite appreciate such well thought out and not knee jerk reactionary ideas.

[Reever]

A quote from Josh Sawyer: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3593502&userid=17931&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post424444483

 

 

EDIT: But is a spell wasted entirely if it gets interrupted?

 

Currently, no. If a spell or ability doesn't go off, it isn't lost but it has to be started over.

 

I personally don't have much of a problem with this, since I don't think "spell loss" was a super-important mechanic in the Infinity Engine games and it was probably overly punitive (the mage already got hit AND failed to cast a spell, he doesn't need to lose it too on top of that).

 

That said, this does remove the ability to "drain" an enemy mage of all his spells (by interrupting them all) and turn him into a sitting duck who can be safely ignored until the rest of the enemy party has been dispatched. Some people might miss that.

 

Dunno about "Drain", but that sure was something I hate in Torment. You don't have enough spells anyway, wasting them like that is just "bleargh". There will surely be other anti-spellcaster abilities, so don't worry! =)

[Enoch]

I imagine that this decision is largely about balancing the flavors of attacking (and, consequently, the related attributes and the attributes and items that resist these attacks).  Consistent damage v. Critical chance v. Interrupt chance.

 

Depending on the scope of interruptable limited-use abilities (which seems to be broader than D&D spells, including things like melee-class special attacks), an interrupt sapping a longer-term resource might make interruption-heavy strategies a bit too appealing.  (Or make interruption-prone enemies a bit too powerful.  We all know that the most dangerous attack that the BG2 dragons had wasn't the breath weapon-- it was the wing buffett.)  I suspect that making an opponent effectively lose whatever time it put into that action (and a small recovery period after the interrupting blow lands) is going to be a valuable enough advantage to make pursuit of it worthwhile.  

[JFSOCC]

I hope there will be interrupt abilities which put spells on an additional cooldown.

[PrimeJunta]

I don't care for cooldowns. They're a lazy way to balance abilities or impose constraints. They're especially bad if there's no obvious and visible reason for them, such as an associated animation. The wizard grimoire swap cooldown just might work if it's obvious to the player what's happening, e.g. an animation that has the wizard sucking his thumb for a while when wrapping his head around the different set of spells.

[JFSOCC]

I hope there will be a large database of character animations, barring that, however, I think cooldowns are ok, especially if there is a reason behind them. "Disabling shot" with my Guild Wars Ranger did less damage but put the ability being cast at that moment on cooldown. Very useful for an interrupter like my ranger was.

 

I'm not saying cooldowns for "normal" resolve-fail interrupts, but rather for specific interrupt abilities.

[rjshae]

Spell cool-downs I don't have a problem with; it's tactical combat cool-downs where it seems a little odd. For the latter, one might interpret it as the opponent keeping a watchful eye for the same tactic being used. But then it should be re-chargeable by disengaging from a fight.

[Yonjuro]

I don't think it makes much difference. If you're able to hammer a spellcaster hard and fast enough to interrupt all his spells, it's highly unlikely he would be standing at that point anyway. I don't recall ever having actually had your "sitting duck" situation.

 

 (Well,  the IE games did have the Wand of Magic Missile (aka the wand of spell interruption). It shot one Magic Missile for less damage than a sling but it never missed.)

 

 

...

I personally don't have much of a problem with this, since I don't think "spell loss" was a super-important mechanic in the Infinity Engine games and it was probably overly punitive (the mage already got hit AND failed to cast a spell, he doesn't need to lose it too on top of that).

...

 

 

 I'm fine either way as long as everyone plays by the same rules.

[Ebi]

 

 

Currently, no. If a spell or ability doesn't go off, it isn't lost but it has to be started over.

 

That's exactly what I'd prefer.

[Lephys]

From a balancing standpoint, I don't think it's much of a big deal. If you knock an arrow, draw, and aim your bow, then get smacked upside the head before you can fire, your arrow doesn't disintegrate.

 

You're out the cast time of the spell, and you're temporarily stunned, if only for a moment, so that your "lemme try that again" start time is delayed, even if you IMMEDIATELY start casting again after the interrupt, AND you don't get any of the benefit of that spell (no damage to the enemy, or useful friendly effects, etc.).

 

I don't see where you need to have your spell lost, even temporarily (for the rest of the encounter) any more than an archer should be unable to use his arrow for any amount of time, from a mechanical standpoint.

 

From a lore standpoint? Sure, maybe you want magic to not function like an arrow. But, I don't see why that's necessary. Wizards already can't cast unless it's via their grimoire -- a select list of spells at any point in time --, AND there's variable cast time. I don't see really even see a lore purpose for something like "Oh, if you were focusing all complexly and whatnot on weaving that spell, and you get interrupted, then you've already lost that complex focus from your mind, and cannot regain it for a while, even though you didn't produce any energy)."

 

Besides, you can have more than one spell ammo for a given spell, so it makes ZERO sense if you try to cast Fireball, get interrupted, then have the game tell you "Oh, you can't cast that particular fireball spell again, because reasons, but you can still cast the other 4 instances of it that you're able."

 

What's the difference, at that point? To make sense, it would have to prevent you from casting that spell, at all, for some duration. Which is akin to the example archer losing his whole bow and having to draw a different weapon for a while, just because his shot was interrupted. That'd be a pretty crippling effect to balance. The game would just be "You'd better hope to God that your Wizard doesn't get a spell interrupted, u_u..."

[Ganrich]

I am fine with retaining spells when a caster is interrupted. An archer wouldn't lose an arrow if his shot was interrupted. I understand the principles were different with spell casters, but I see why we wouldn't want to further inhibit them vs other classes.

 

I also would like to chime in that I love counter spell mechanics, and I agree with PrimeJunta that it would be awesome if that was implemented.

[anameforobsidian]

I'm quite taken with the idea of a cooldown for per rest abilities, and a shorter one for per encounter abilities.

[Lephys]

I'm quite taken with the idea of a cooldown for per rest abilities, and a shorter one for per encounter abilities.

I honestly wouldn't mind that, either. Though, it would be a matter of really pegging the times. Too long and it's basically pointless (you're statistically going to ALWAYS reach the next rest point and/or NEED a rest point for health reasons before you even get a chance to worry about getting your spells back without resting). Too short and it's too easy to just stand around for 5 more minutes to get all your spells back, which kind of defeats the purpose of the pseudo-vancian system to begin with.

 

 

Blarg... I should add that I'm cool with counter-spell/disruption-type abilities, if that's what a whole ability's designed to do. I only meant (in the previous post with archer comparisons) that I wouldn't want the standard per-hit concentration-break interrupt to have any effect on spell use beyond just "you were stopped, mildly delayed for a moment or two, and now must begin again if you wish to cast that same spell."

 

And Junta, I just had a thought that, instead of the Wizard sucking his thumb (humorous exaggeration, I know, ), it could be that a "ready" grimoire is glowing (or something less cliche but easily noticeable), and a freshly-swapped one is not. Maybe little inwardly-spiraling motes of energy swirl into it while the swap cooldown is going (and the book is closed?), then it opens up and glows when it is ready (when iTunes is done syncing your Wizard's soul library and his Grimoire's library, )

Edited January 17, 2014 by Lephys

[Sedrefilos]

I believe interrupted spells should be removed entirely from the rest of the playthrough. You got hit while casting a spell? Too bad for you; permanent memory loss.

 

Seriously now, I'm not fan of memorization mechanics and stuff. I believe mana and cooldowns is the best way to treat spells in video games. That said, I like the idea of not losing the spell till rest efter interruption.

[Gorbag]

I'm quite taken with the idea of a cooldown for per rest abilities, and a shorter one for per encounter abilities.

I don't think any cooldowns aside from animations and casting times would be necessary. And it's not really so much abut per rest vs. per encounter as it is about casting times. IMO the system would balance itself pretty well as it is:

Spells with short casting times are much like attacks - you can disrupt them once by being devious (e.g. wand of M&Ms) or lucky, but that does not make much sense in the long run. In this regard, I don't find it fair to attach additional cooldowns to such spells but not to ordinary interrupted attacks.  On the other hand, if your mage has a sucky concentration and is standing toe-to-toe with a fast thief who can disrupt him/her constantly, then trying to cast the same spell over and over again isn't the most viable tactic with or without cooldowns.

If the spell has a longer casting time, however, any successful form of interruption would have severe consequences as the mage would have to do his/her hit animation, regain stance, select the spell again, do his/her casting dance, shout "vita mortis whatever" and wait for the effect to trigger, all the while hoping to not get interrupted again. That seems fair enough. Attaching an additional cooldown will make it too punishing.

As for losing/retaining the spell, I think it would be best if it's made into a matter of difficulty, but if that's too hard to implement, I don't mind dropping the "lost my spell" mechanic altogether. 

Meta-spells, on the other hand, (if there are any) should imo work differently than the regular concentration/interruption routine.

[Endrosz]

Sawyer himself mentioned the term "time-based system". I'm sorry for bringing up my fav MMO all the time, but GW2's combat is one such time-based system with cooldowns only, no mana, and a strong emphasis on timing and interruption.

 

During GW2's early beta testing, mana was in the game, and there were accompanying attributes. However, most people dumped those attributes and went for low mana cost skills. And then the devs decided that for a fast-paced real-time system, mana is unnecessary, and - gasp! - removed both mana and the related attributes.

 

You need time:

- To move into attack position (mostly applies to melee)

- To activate abilities  -- at the right time! (there are many conditional bonuses in GW2 skills)

- To kite enemies (kite = moving evade; mostly applies to ranged)

- To move out of AoE

 

So losing time is a big, big punishment in itself in a well-designed time-based system (in contrast to Everquest-clones, where you or a skill macro just spam a rotation no matter what, and losing one skill usually doesn't matter that much). When a skill gets interrupted in GW2, it goes on a 5 sec interrupt cooldown. There is this additional punishment, but not too big.

 

Here's an example. My awesomesauce norn warrior wields his trusty two-handed warhammer, which has an adrenaline (= rage, burst, etc.) skill called Earthshaker. It stuns in an area, for 2 seconds with a full adrenaline bar, making it one of the most powerful crowd control skills in the entire game. I'm fighting against a bunch of pretty annoying mobs called the dredge (humanoid moles with no eyesight but great hearing), who also have various crowd control skills (sound-based daze, knockdown, knockback), and since there's a lot of them in their burrows, I need to be careful when to activate crucial skills. Even tough they're regular mobs, they can "stunlock" me if I don't pay attention.

 

First pic: Earthshaker successful, winwinwin

Second pic: Earthshaker is delayed a bit  -- I got knocked down for 2 seconds, that's the cooldown you see on all skills

Third pic -- imaginary, didn't bother to try to capture that moment: Earthshaker is interrupted, which means a 5 seconds cooldown before I can try again

 

 

TL;DR

- Interruption means time loss, and in a fast-paced time-based system that's punishment enough.

- I'm absolutely fine with cooldowns, including interrupt cooldowns; at the very least, they are better limiters than mana or spell book slots. (n.b. There are some mana systems, such as Dark Souls's stamina system, which work well, but in a game with many diverse skills, like a full-blown cPRG, cooldown and per-occasion are better universal cost functions than mana.)

Edited January 17, 2014 by Endrosz