Update #74: Wizard & Druid Reflections

[Cubiq]

Yes, as much as Burger King has copied McDonald's by also selling grilled beef patties that go between buns. DnD didn't invent the concept of Wizards shooting fire, etc. Those "copied" spells are very basic concepts. Along the lines of what BrainMuncher said, if you made sure nothing in PoE duplicated anything from D&D, then we pretty much wouldn't have anything that's in the game right now. Bows? D&D did it. Longswords? We have to invent a new type of sword, because D&D had those. Druids? Can't have that... D&D had nature-based spell casters called druids. Inns? Stolen from D&D.

 

Did Call of Duty copy Wolfenstein 3D by having pistols in it? Or are they both games that happen to involve shooting pistols?

 

There's a difference between using something that someone else used, and copying or somehow nefariously taking from someone else.

 

D&D doesn't hold the copyright on the very idea of Wizards who shoot fireballs, or electrocute people via touch, or categories of medieval weaponry. It's not sugar-coating. It's just fact.

Seriously?

Oh my god wow.

Even people in the thread already agreed that the spells are from the IE games, and you're trying to tell me that it just so happens that they are the same because they are "basic concept"???

Are you implying that anyone could have come up with so many similar spells just by following the basic concept of "wizards shooting fire"?

 

I've always known you were a delusional fanboy from reading your posts, but woooooow.

Oh my god i can't believe this.

 

I'm never taking your posts seriously ever again. The sheer stupidity that comes from it is amazing, and that's a sentence i'm happy to get banned for.

This is absolutely amazing. I need to go lie down, i think i got brain damage from that post.

[Lephys]

Seriously?

Oh my god wow.

Even people in the thread already agreed that the spells are from the IE games, and you're trying to tell me that it just so happens that they are the same because they are "basic concept"???

For what it's worth, I have a feeling the problem lies in the fact that you're assuming that my intent is to say "there's no possible way that anything could ever be considered 'bad' copying/ripping-off." Which I'm not. If they copy the exact same spell name, and radius, and damage, and range, and explosive effect, for a Fireball spell or something, then yeah, they're copying.

 

But... well, you keep citing spells, but what about an ability like "Kick" for a melee fighter? By the exact same reasoning you're using, if D&D has a Warrior ability that is essentially "Your Warrior kicks this guy, deals some damage, and maybe stuns/knocks them down," and PoE decides "I want a melee combatant to be able to kick someone, which will naturally deal some damage, and possibly knock them down or stun them or something," that they're maliciously copying D&d and stealing away all their creativity.

 

I'm never taking your posts seriously ever again.

To be fair, you can't really stop what you already weren't doing.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Lephys

[Ffordesoon]

They probably put some similar spells in there to assuage fears that Wizards would be oh-so-shockingly-different from IE casters. Which then bothered some people anyway.

 

Obsidian can't win with some of you folks, I swear.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I'm glad to hear that Druids will be able to select additional forms later on. As far as spell not scaling with level, this is a curiousity. From a design standpoint it should make things a great deal easier, though there is the potential for crutching on "minor, lesser, greater, major" variations of the same spell to accomodate for players outgrowing a staple spell. We shall see....

[illathid]

IIRC game mechanics can not be copyrighted, which is part of the reason Pathfinder is a thing right now. So even if PoE does just copy the Baldur's Gate spell list whole cloth, there's nothing illegal about it. Whether it is a good idea or not is another question, but still.

[Frenzy-kun]

I don't like the idea of the druid getting some cleric spells. I love classes to be unique in their playstile, and when they overlap, it feels cheap or it outdates the other class.

 

I really would stick the druid with shapeshifting and autobuffing, and leaving damage and debuffing skills to wizards and team buffing and healing to priests. Right now I see no reason to use a wizard instead of a druid. Wizards are weak, unlike druids, and those druid spells covers almost every situation a wizard or priest can do,but being able to resist more and to use armors.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Frenzy-kun

[Ineth]

I don't like the idea of the druid getting some cleric spells. I love classes to be unique in their playstile, and when they overlap, it feels cheap or it outdates the other class.

 

Well, during the kickstarter they did promise that they will design the game to be playable and enjoyable with any party size from 1 to 6.

 

So, in the absence of multiclassing, the individual classes have to be a little more versatile in order to allow players to cover all important skills with a small party.

 

Right now I see no reason to use a wizard instead of a druid. Wizards are weak, unlike druids, and those druid spells covers almost every situation a wizard or priest can do,but being able to resist more and to use armors.

 

I trust that Obsidian will take care to balance the classes overall.

 

You can't really draw conclusions about the relative usefulness of classes based on just a few parameters. There are many other parameters that haven't been described in detail yet, which may be used to offset imbalances in those that we already know about.

 

For example, maybe wizards will be able to cast more spells per encounter/day than druids?

Or their damage spells will do a lot more damage on average?

Or they can cast their spells faster?

...etc...

[Ineth]

As far as spell not scaling with level, this is a curiousity. From a design standpoint it should make things a great deal easier, though there is the potential for crutching on "minor, lesser, greater, major" variations of the same spell to accomodate for players outgrowing a staple spell.

 

+1

 

For example, I think the Spell Revisions mod for BG2 really improves upon the original BG2 spells, by:

• slightly nerfing the overpowered spells (Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting,  Project Image,  Insect Plague,  ...)
• slightly boosting the weak/useless/boring spells, in many cases by making them scale up with the caster level.

I find that I end up using more varied and fun tactics with this mod.

In the unmodded game, I'd often fill an entire spell book page (especially the lower ones) with the single good spell of that spell level and ignore all the others because they were no longer useful at my character's level. With Spell Revisions, I have an incentive to keep multiple different spells of any level memorized, because almost all of them remain at least sometimes useful throughout the game.

 

Of course it's just a fan-created mod, but to me it always represented the "modern" way to balance spells.

 

I wonder what led Obsidian to go in the opposite direction with PoE.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Ineth

[PrimeJunta]

I would guess simplicity. If it doesn't scale you don't have to implement scaling, and you don't have to account for scaling effects when balancing it. The overall effect on character power is more or less the same if they gain more powerful variants and more of the weaker ones.

[Jarrakul]

Also, scaling spells produce a double-scaling effect (spells scale and you get better spells) that is in part responsible for the typically exponential growth of spellcasters relative to non-spellcasters in most RPGs. The refusal to scale spells should help curb that tendency.

[Hassat Hunter]

They still get better by allowing them to be cast more, in the end even permanent (replacing the sling mages I had in Baldur's Gate). Magic Missile doesn't really need a boost if you just case it indefinitely anyway.

I don't like the idea of the druid getting some cleric spells. I love classes to be unique in their playstile, and when they overlap, it feels cheap or it outdates the other class.

 

I really would stick the druid with shapeshifting and autobuffing, and leaving damage and debuffing skills to wizards and team buffing and healing to priests. Right now I see no reason to use a wizard instead of a druid. Wizards are weak, unlike druids, and those druid spells covers almost every situation a wizard or priest can do,but being able to resist more and to use armors.

 

I need to remember this post, and quote it to you once after release you're inevitable post appears stating "why are druids even in the game. Wizards do everything they do better."

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I wonder if Druids can lose themselves in their Wildforms?

They can, and they start singing "Wild Thing" constantly as a result.

[Ffordesoon]

To be honest, I'd rather see all spells be useful throughout the game without any kind of scaling. Instead, the spells should be useful throughout the game, and the monsters should communicate visually that a given spell won't be so useful on them. A fireball is gonna kill the hell out of the average kobold, but on a dragon or a gibbering horror from beyond time and space, it should be as useful as going "Pew pew!" and pointing your finger at it.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Ffordesoon

[rjshae]

I don't like the idea of the druid getting some cleric spells. I love classes to be unique in their playstile, and when they overlap, it feels cheap or it outdates the other class.

 

You're suggesting that druids, modeled after the celtic priest class, shouldn't get any priestly spells? That doesn't make sense. Some overlap in function is fine for game-play purposes, particularly since you are limited to six characters. The classes only need to be  sufficiently distinct to feel unique; they don't need to be completely different in every aspect. The latter approach is too clinical.

[Gfted1]

If Druids are modeled on Priests, what are the Priests modeled on?

[rjshae]

If Druids are modeled on Priests, what are the Priests modeled on?

 

Presumably non-Celtic priests, although the D&D ones always seemed somewhat Christianity-oriented to me.

[Ineth]

If Druids are modeled on Priests, what are the Priests modeled on?

 

Paladins.

[Hassat Hunter]

So, if Priests are based on Paladins... what are Paladins based on?

EDIT... my bad...

So, if Priests are modeled on Paladins... what are the Paladins modeled on?

Edited March 21, 2014 by Hassat Hunter

[Tamerlane]

Warlords?

[Hassat Hunter]

So, if Paladins are modeled on Warlords... what are the... oh wait, nvm.

 

Eh, so confusing naming then.

[J.E. Sawyer]

EDIT: Im also slightly concerned that since spells don't scale with level that if you miss finding whatever the next spell upgrade is that the mage will fall behind but hopefully the new spells aren't too hidden.

 

Our current design for wizards allows them to learn a new spell every time they gain a level, so if there's one that you REALLY want, the system allows you to take it when you advance.

 

E: This doesn't apply to unique spells, but there will probably be very few of them.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I don't like the idea of the druid getting some cleric spells. I love classes to be unique in their playstile, and when they overlap, it feels cheap or it outdates the other class.

 

Druids don't get priest spells.  They do get some healing and support spells, but they are not the same ones that priests get.

[J.E. Sawyer]

If Druids are modeled on Priests, what are the Priests modeled on?

 

Currently, wizards, druids, and priests are all heavily casting-oriented classes.  None of them are particularly great at weapon-based combat on their own and they aren't too durable, either.  The major differences between them in terms of spellcasting come down to what their spells emphasize.  Druids and wizards both have good AoE attacks, with druids having more affliction-based effects and wizards emphasizing damage more.  Wizards have quite a few personal buffs and oddball spells (like Minor Grimoire Imprint, Arcane Reflection, etc.), druids have "HoTs" (heal over time) and some support.  Priests heavily emphasize support and fast healing with a small number of personal buffs and select AoEs.

[rjshae]

I wonder: can druids gain combat talents for fighting in demi-human form? I.e. can they specialize in shapeshifted combat rather than focusing on particular weapons and martial styles?

[J.E. Sawyer]

They probably put some similar spells in there to assuage fears that Wizards would be oh-so-shockingly-different from IE casters. Which then bothered some people anyway.

 

Obsidian can't win with some of you folks, I swear.

 

Wizards are easily among the most popular character classes for IE fans.  When we went through our spell lists, we identified spell concepts/mechanics that seemed too integral to the feeling of a traditional class for us to ignore.  We have invented a bunch of off-the-wall stuff for them to use, but I think it would be a mistake for us to conspicuously not have a fireball-ish spell at 3rd level or not have a magic missile-ish spell at 1st level.  If we omitted those from our lists, the classes would still have big lists of fun spells, but I think they would lose a good chunk of the *~ classic feels ~*.  From a balance perspective, I do want to avoid the "quadratic wizard" (and druid), but I think we can do that and still keep the spirit of the classes alive.