alternatives to cool-downs; spell & ability components

[agris]

I realize that per-encounter and rest cool-down timers are an established part of the game, but I continue to read about people concerned that these mechanics feel too MMO-ish (in particular the per-encounter non-spell combat abilities).

 

I share this opinion, and am worried about the gameplay deviating from the old IE style too much and for the worse. If the developers don't consider the combat gameplay feeling like a single-player MMO a bad thing, this point is moot. But I sincerely hope they do.

 

So my question is this: have the developers considered using rare or expensive spell/ability components (inventory consumables essentially) to restrict the frequency of ability use, rather than cool-down timers? Not as a complete replacement of timers, but to augment it. Timers and components (either together or separate), rather than relying purely on timers to limit spell/ability usage. Do you, the community, have any thoughts about this? I'm sure you do..

[J.E. Sawyer]

We don't rely on timers (outside of general animation/recovery time for all actions) to limit spell or ability usage.  The only significant difference between non-spell per-encounter abilities in PoE and active use high level abilities in BG2 is that the latter are per-rest/day.  As such, they become tactical resources more than strategic resources.  There isn't a "timer" involved in any case.  If something has a per-encounter use, that use of the ability will not come back until combat ends.  If something has a per-rest use, that use of the ability will not come back until you rest.  

[agris]

Thanks Josh, but I think you're interpreting 'timer' too restrictively and missing the point of my question, or maybe I shouldn't have used the word timer at all. Either way, I'm talking about the effect on the feel of combat by making class active abilities refresh on a per-encounter...basis, and casters' spells refreshing per-encounter/rest. I realize these existed in the IE games on a per-rest basis, but it's the density (active class/modal and spells) and frequency (per-encounter) in PoE that cause some of us to worry about the combat feeling MMO-ish.

 

Did you guys consider using components to augment or replace per-encounter or rest active ability refreshes (man, finding it hard to avoid using the word 'timer'..)? I assume it came up during design, so why did it get ditched for per-X refreshes?

Edited February 3, 2014 by agris

[J.E. Sawyer]

No, AFAIK, we've never considered using consumable components.  I don't think the combat currently feels like any MMO I've played and I don't think it will feel like it to people playing the game.  More importantly, I think the addition of a usage frequency that sits below "all the time"/passive and above "x/day" is good because it gives the player another element to consider when they are selecting abilities to use.

[Quadrone]

 

Did you guys consider using components to augment or replace per-encounter or rest active ability refreshes....

 

How exactly would this work? I mean in a way that is isn't useless/restrictive/obnoxious.

Can you just buy those components pretty cheaply? Then they would be useless as you can buy a bunch and then even spam spells as you got plenty of resources.

Do you have to find them or buy expensive components for powerful spells? Then they are restrictive as many won't dare cast certain spells for fear of wasting a rare spell component, which in turn means wasting either money or risk running out of the component if you aren't able to find more of it soon.

 

At least that is is what comes to my mind first, someone care to dissuade me?

[Infinitron]

OP, that's not what "cool down" means. I think your real complaint is that there are just too many abilities; their method of refreshing has nothing to do with it.

 

I also find your assumption that they considered spell components strange. Why would they consider that? It deviates more from the IE style of gameplay then what they're doing now.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Infinitron

[Lephys]

Well, the other thing is... the threshold between what's per-encounter and what's per-rest is sort of determined by, ehh... power. "spell level" in D&D terms. Yeah, once you're LvL 12 or something, for example, you might have all your spells up to LvL 3 or 4 on a per-encounter cycle. But then, when facing LvL 12 foes, in groups, your LvL 3 spells aren't as big of a deal anymore.

 

That, or maybe you even get some certain number of spells per-encounter, AND some certain number of spells per-rest, from the same "tier" of spells. *shrug*. It's possible.

 

The point being that they aren't just arbitrarily throwing in per-encounter stuff. You're not just gonna have the choice between your lightning spell that's per-rest, and your fireball that's per-encounter, for no other reason than to have both types of spells. The choice for a spell/ability to "refresh" more often (per encounter) is a significant design choice.

 

One of the biggest problems I have with D&D (at least, older D&D -- as I think they've sort of remedied this in newer versions? *shrug*) is that, as a caster, you've got a pretty slim bag of tricks until you get on up there in levels. Seriously... a Level 1 Wizard with 5 spells per day? (because in PnP D&D, you can't just rest every 3 seconds to refresh them).

 

Anywho, I think the per-encounter thing is going to work out fine. There's nothing requiring it to somehow enter the MMO-level of ability spam. It's not like an ability that goes onto an encounter refresh is somehow unlimited to use. You could have as little as a single use of that spell, per encounter. That's hardly MMO-style. Like Josh said, that's a significant choice in between "oh crap, I can only use this X times before going to some rest location again, so this has got to get me through a lot of encounters" and "Oh, I can use this all the time, whenever."

[Ffordesoon]

Per-day spells are effectively per-encounter in BG1 anyway. Having to rest in order to refresh them just means you end up resting after every encounter. Yes, there's the occasional random attack, but that's just one more encounter. Neither adds much to the game besides time, IMHO.

[MReed]

Note that a simple 1/day or 1/encounter omits the second element of the equation -- you can equip grimoire's, which contain slots of spell levels.  Nothing prevents you from putting the same spell into multiple slots, which turns it into a x/day or x/encounter (depending on level).

 

I'm still a bit dubious about this spellcasting system, but I'm willing to see how it works --  I agree that the D&D version is implemented in BG has a big drawback where good roleplaying (not resting after every encounter) has a big impact on difficulty, and that's part of what this system is designed to address.

[sibakruom]

Note that a simple 1/day or 1/encounter omits the second element of the equation -- you can equip grimoire's, which contain slots of spell levels.  Nothing prevents you from putting the same spell into multiple slots, which turns it into a x/day or x/encounter (depending on level).

 

I'm not sure that's how spells work. Putting spells in your grimoire only tells you which spells you can cast, not how many times you can cast them.

 

Let's take an example: imagine your mage can cast level 3 spells 4 times per rest, and has a grimoire that contains 2 slots for level 3. If you put two different spells in the grimoire, let's say Fireball and Haste, the mage will be able to cast 4 level 3 spells per rest, in any combination possible: 4 Fireball/0 Haste, 3 Fireball/1 Haste, 2 Fireball/2 Haste, etc. But if you put two Fireball in the grimoire, the mage will still be limited to 4 level 3 spells per rest, all Fireball this time. You won't get more Fireball casts per rest this way.

[MReed]

Hmmm...  you may be correct, which would be disappointing if true -- it adds another strategic dimension to spell selection if there is a benefit in having the same spell in the grimoire more than once is beneficial.

[teknoman2]

it's how sibakruom says, but the grimoire can hold 4 spells/level flat. no more no less. what spells are those going to be you choose from what you have learned so far

if the only lv3 spell you know is fireball, then that is the only spell you can cast

[rjshae]

A suggestion would be to expand on the current system by adding in spell components that function like weapon ammo. Having them available temporarily expands the number of uses per combat, at the price of using up the components. The components could then be added to the random loot tables.

[Lephys]

I believe sibakruom has the right of it. If you got charges per day, AND the spellbook governed charges per day, that'd be a bit redundant. *shrug* There could always be bonuses or something. Modifiers on different spiffy grimoires you find. "+1 to level-3 spell charges! (per day/encounter... whichever you're at at your current level of power). And you can keep going with that, with various specific details, to get it however you want it.

 

Hmmm...  you may be correct, which would be disappointing if true -- it adds another strategic dimension to spell selection if there is a benefit in having the same spell in the grimoire more than once is beneficial.

I suppose, but... you still have to make the strategic choice of spending all 4 charges (from siba's example) on fireball, or spending one or more on haste (or even none on fireball). The only difference is that you're not limited to all-or-nothing ("Oh, you put Fireball into all 4 slots of your spell book? Then you have 4 charges of Fireball... nothing more, nothing less." Which I always thought was CRAZILY rigid of D&D, to be honest.) All you're really "missing out" on, with the current design, is the limitation.

 

PLUS, you could potentially still have some kind of a bonus/effect from basically sacrificing a spell slot -- by putting a spell into your grimoire twice, as you described it. So, if you had 4 slots, and 2 were taken up by Fireball, 1 by Haste, and 1 by... I dunno, Charm. Well, now, at the cost of only getting to choose between 3 spells instead of 4, maybe spending 2 slots on Fireball could beef it up in some manner (maybe you even get to choose... almost like metamagic feat functionality in D&D -- do I want a bigger AoE range on my Fireball, or more burn duration on the foes affected, or just more straight-up damage from the impact? etc.

 

My point simply being that there's room for such things. If the grimoire's kind of a conduit, then it's limited because it can only handle so many different, ehh, "circuits" at once (for different spells). Thus, you'd think it might be possible to dedicate multiple circuits to a single spell formula, to focus even more energy through the book for that particular spell. As a video game ability, I'm sure there'd be limitations and such to make it not ridiculous (you can only devote SO many slots to a single spell before the book can't handle that much energy flow at once, etc.).

 

it's how sibakruom says, but the grimoire can hold 4 spells/level flat. no more no less.

This I'm not so sure about. I could've sworn there was a quote somewhere about being able to find various grimoires with various spell slots/level. Some might have an extra LvL-4-spell slot, at the cost of fewer LvL 2 and LvL 3 slots or something. That's really the main thing the grimoire is governing -- it's kind of like your magic quiver; you can only launch whatever types of ammo you've got in it. So, it seems a bit weird for most stuff in the game to have variety, while all grimoires in existence are exactly the same. *shrug* Not that it couldn't be that way. I need to try and find that quote... I always vaguely remember things. Stupid defective brain. *punches own brain*

[teknoman2]

i thought that different grimoires could have a variation of spell slots for each level, so you could take one that allows you to put in very few low level spells and more higher level spells, or vice  versa, or something more balanced. then i read someones post saying it's 4 spells/level and i think it had a quote from Josh on it

[Lephys]

then i read someones post saying it's 4 spells/level and i think it had a quote from Josh on it

I remember that exact mention of "4 spells/level," but I can't remember exactly what it was referring to, and I cannot for the life of me find the quote anywhere. I think it may have been one from Josh, quoted on these forums from its original location at SomethingAwful. *shrug*. Because I can't find it in Josh's post-search.

 

Going on fuzziness here, I think that was in reference to some sort of baseline they were working with currently. I think it might've been the default grimoire, or the one they're working with at the moment. *shrug*

 

It may very well be that they've simply changed it to that. But, I certainly hope not. Or, if that IS the case, I hope that grimoires can still vary in some fashion. I'd hate to see an entire item type like that have absolutely no variety. That would make it pointless to ever discover/loot/craft new grimoires, etc. There'd just be one item in the game: "Grimoire."

[sibakruom]

then i read someones post saying it's 4 spells/level and i think it had a quote from Josh on it

I remember that exact mention of "4 spells/level," but I can't remember exactly what it was referring to, and I cannot for the life of me find the quote anywhere. I think it may have been one from Josh, quoted on these forums from its original location at SomethingAwful. *shrug*. Because I can't find it in Josh's post-search.

 

The only thing I can find on Something Awful is this:

http://archives.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3506352&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=487#post420249340

 

Sawyer:

"Yes. Wizard grimoires are a sort of magical capacitor that are constructed and partitioned in *~ special ~* ways. A single grimoire can only hold four spells of any given level. For any given spell level, wizards have potential access to more spells than any other caster class, but their access at any particular moment is always limited by their current grimoire. You can switch grimoires, but if you do it in combat, you will lose access to all of your spells for a small* amount of time.

 

* Long enough to make it risky, short enough to be a viable tactic in certain circumstances."

 

This can be read either as exactly four spells per level, or as up to four spells per level. Also, it dates back to October of last year, so things might have changed since then.

[Lephys]

The only thing I can find on Something Awful is this:

http://archives.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3506352&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=487#post420249340

 

Sawyer:

"Yes. Wizard grimoires are a sort of magical capacitor that are constructed and partitioned in *~ special ~* ways. A single grimoire can only hold four spells of any given level. For any given spell level, wizards have potential access to more spells than any other caster class, but their access at any particular moment is always limited by their current grimoire. You can switch grimoires, but if you do it in combat, you will lose access to all of your spells for a small* amount of time.

 

This can be read either as exactly four spells per level, or as up to four spells per level. Also, it dates back to October of last year, so things might have changed since then.

Yeah, that's it! Thanks!

 

And yeah, again, it could be that they've simply changed the design, and it's a static 4 spells per level in every grimoire, no matter what. But, a while back, they were talking about variance between different grimoires (now I have to go find THAT quote! haha...). And, also again, they could simply be using different factors as variance between grimoires (besides number of spell slots).