No more GM sucker punches, and the gameplay challenges thereof

[Volourn]

"  You should never need 4-5 counter spells for one fight. "

 

Fantastic. I never had a fight in BG2 where I need 4-5 counter spells. Hellz, not one encounter NEEDED even one counter spell.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Nerds suck. Make the only spell wizards can cast "fire bolt". Give fighters, like, a billion different stances and special little maneuvers and stuff. Oh, you tried to break his vom tag with a zwerchhau but then he shifted into an ox guard? What now, I ask?

 

Thank you for agreeing with, and supporting my point.

 

But it doesn't need to be less complex or interesting, nor do the effects need to be less powerful. The question "What do you do?" simply needs to have an answer the player can grasp without memorizing the Spell Compendium. Which isn't hard, as the answer to almost all of those questions is ridiculously obvious: use the appropriate counter. The only issue with BG2's combat is that it's rarely obvious what the appropriate counter is in the moment, because every rule has a billion exceptions.

 

I want to be sympathetic towards your statement. The BG2 spell book, as robust as it was, did need refinement. The existence of the superb G3 Spell Revisions mod is proof of this. Ultimately though, I can't pity anyone who found coping with BG2's spells overwhelming. There are so many options (which I was trying to illustrate), that people should have been tripping over solutions. There are 8 spells alone which counter just invisibility effects directly, and many other spells which do it indirectly. Theives even have an unlimited True Sight ability! I'm sorry that I'm not more sorry for any deficiencies someone may have with that much depth. Gross overstatements like, "every ruse has a billion exceptions" certainly doesn't help your argument either. We've seen what catering to that playstyle and demographic have wrought upon us. Enough is enough.

 

 

 

^ This.

 

Plus, I dare say you can even have all those immunities and such, but make them a lot more temporary.

 

For example, the idea that you, as a mean old mage, protect yourself from fire, then bathe the battlefield in fire... that's a great tactic! But, why do you need to be immune to fire for the next 72 hours, or until someone else can dispel it? Does it prevent this ability if you make yourself immune to fire for like... the next 20 seconds, or for the next 5 hits from a source of fire damage? Nope. You still get to do really cool things with that. "Hey, Fighter... *poof*, you're immune to fire for the next 10 seconds. NOW CHARGE THAT FIRE ELEMENTAL AND MAKE THEM COUNT!"

 

The thing that makes them boring (in a way, mind you; that spell system isn't just-plain lame or anything... it's just an aspect that could allow for the rest of combat to be more interesting and diverse) is that it becomes a game of "either successfully dispel that, or just completely abandon anything even remotely having to do with that." Oh, you made a Fire Mage? And the enemy mage blanketed everyone on the battlefield with fire protection? Well, you can use of of those 2 spells that aren't fire-based. OR, you can be useless. Or, you can try to dispel that protection. Except, what's this? They're even using countermeasures against your attempts to dispel it! WTF?! Better deploy the anti-anti-dispel countermeasures, so that you can dispel their anti-fire countermeasures, so that you can actually use fire again, which your build was designed around for your mage. And that's just the start of things. Now, your mage is useful again, and you wasted all that time and effort just so he could hurt things again. You STILL have to win combat. They can still mitigate your fire damage in various other ways, and can still thwart your casting efforts and such. It's not like tactics are gone now because they can't immunize themselves against fire for the duration of combat, and force you to partake in a Dispelling Bee.

 

And... I'm sorry, but PROTECTION AGAINST WEAPONS? That's great in a PnP campaign, but in a friggin' cRPG? What the eff? That's like an FPS giving people "Protection from Bullets." I really don't think that's necessary at all.

 

A damage threshold in the armor system already provides functional protection from weapons. So, that's just plain redundant. The mage could just as easily cast a magical armor-boosting spell, and raise the DT so that most of your normal attacks don't hurt him. You can still hurt him, though. You just have to use your more damaging abilities. But, it doesn't just nullify the entire type of damage.

 

I think a system that allows you to figure out how to achieve something in a limited capacity is much better than one that just says "try something else, entirely." Especially when you start stacking those effects. "Oh, now he has protection from like 5 things. Great..."

 

Basically, the more options the player has (even if some of them are still far less effective than others), the better, in a tactical sense. Figuring out a way to turn a disadvantage around is something you don't get to do when the disadvantage is simply "this approach has been totally nullified." And this is far worse when it applies to build choices. Very general ones. "Oh, you can specialize in this one school of magic, but then... in certain fights, the enemy mages are going to render moot that entire school, LOLZ!"

 

Look at PoE, at the Wizard's Arcane Veil. Sure, a firearm is the quickest, easiest way to pierce it, but it's not just "immunity to everything except firearms." I can still be broken in other ways, just not quite as quickly. Thus, "carry a firearm around" doesn't become an absolute necessity, with the difference being "either we can't do anything to mages, or we can do stuff to mages."

 

 

 

Lephys, your post is an excellent example of someone wanting and attempt to force all holes to be square, because they only like using square pegs.

 

Durations matter. Combat is almost always longer than 20 seconds. Unlike a P&P game, CRPGs are strewn with extremely frequent combat. This is all compounded by a spell system in which uses per day are very limited. All of this culminates to make duration extraordinarily important. Your argument is disingenuine at best.

 

In a word of magic, protection for whole classes of damage is not unreasonable. When the duration boils down to 18 seconds and is a finite resource which incurs explicit opportunity costs of another spell...well, it's not so rediculous anymore. Particuarly when playing a character that has an HP enough to be killed a as little as a few arrows, which a fighter can produce as much as 5 per round of. Many of the spells even have caveats. Only +X class or lower, only magical, only normal...and oh yeah--18 seconds in duration. These effects are also mutually exclusive and preclude stacking. Lets not forget the many many spells which can remove these brief defenses and the many spells and forms of damage which can simply circumvent the spell entirely.

 

See rhetorical fallacy: Ad Absurdum. It will help you.

 

"The breadth and depth of tactical play/spontaneous tactical decision making from a nearly 20 year old game entirely outclasses and dwarfs anything ever seen in a cRPG ever since. EVER SINCE. "

 

No.

 

Then please point me to the cRPG which does it better. Perhaps ToEE, a veritable D&D simulator? My comment was more referent to the spell system, but I doubt I even need to limit myself there. Name one cRPG. Bonus points for any cRPG  released before P:E's kickstarter launched. Please enlighten me.

 

The problem isn't that you sometimes have to counter someone else's spell, it is that you had to do it in almost 50% of the fights in the game, and that there were so many counters you had to use in literally every other fight past a point.  You should never need 4-5 counter spells for one fight.  I needed that many for one fight so many times in BG2 I can't even guess how many times it went down.... probably over 100 times.

 

This belongs with many of the sweeping over-statements made regarding vanilla BG's spell system. Dispel/Remove magic would remove all magical effects (potion, spell, or otherwise) on all creatures in its radius. Breach would remove every combat protection in the game.  Not just one mind you--all active ones. With two relatively lower spells, you could trash every every protection in the game, then mow down the wizard in a round or two with...well...anything at all.

[Volourn]

"Then please point me to the cRPG which does it better. Perhaps ToEE, a veritable D&D simulator? My comment was more referent to the spell system, but I doubt I even need to limit myself there. Name one cRPG. Bonus points for any cRPG  released before P:E's kickstarter launched. Please enlighten me."

 

TOEE and NWN for starters. And, if you come back with that their 'Oifficial CVampaigns' weren't as good as BG2's that irrelevant.Spell and combat/character systems are VASTLY superior, deeper, and more complex than BG2. And, I like BG2 more than either of those games (OC wise).

[Ffordesoon]

@Mr. Magniloquent:

 

I'm more sympathetic to your argument than you might believe. Whatever BG2's spell combat is, it's not just "counter the mage," and I think that's an overgeneralization from the memory of someone who hasn't played the game in a long time rather than an accurate statement about most combat in the game. As someone who's playing it for the first time right now, I'd like to think I have more of a handle on what works and what doesn't about BG2 combat.

 

I will also cop to hyperbole and overgeneralization myself for saying that "every rule has a billion exceptions." Obviously, that isn't true; many systems in the game work spectacularly well, however counterintuitive or overwhelming they may seem to the unlearned player. My point is that the AD&D ruleset gives the appearance of being far more byzantine than it actually is, and this inculcates within a player not already familiar with AD&D a profound sense of mistrust.

 

For example, can you tell me the difference between Dispel Magic and Remove Magic? I don't mean the differences the descriptions inform you of, but the actual, functional difference? As far as I can tell, there are none. They are the same spell. It's just that one is something that clerics get, and the other is something that wizards get. Why don't they get the same spell? Because one is for wizards only and one is for priests only? Why?

 

Then there are the descriptors attached to multiple spells. Why is there a Minor Globe Of Invulnerability in the same game as Lesser Restoration? Why aren't both Minor or Lesser? Et cetera.

 

Or we could take a look at the boatload of spells that all do a similar thing in a slightly different way, or sound similar but are wildly different. Color Spray causes enemies to fall unconscious for a short while, while Chromatic Orb is like eight different spells in one, none of which seem to have much to do with color. Spell Deflection and Spell Turning sound the same, but have notably distinct effects. I could go on.

 

It sounds horribly nitpicky, but little things like that really do erode the player's trust in the whole system. And when the player's trust is eroded, the player starts to become suspicious of the mechanics. As often as not, this results in players brute-forcing their way through encounters with a few cheap tactics rather than exploring the system, which they've come to believe will not reward that exploration.

 

Then they come to this board and start talking about how BG2 has only one style of encounter, etc.

[Cubiq]

For example, can you tell me the difference between Dispel Magic and Remove Magic? I don't mean the differences the descriptions inform you of, but the actual, functional difference? As far as I can tell, there are none. They are the same spell. It's just that one is something that clerics get, and the other is something that wizards get. Why don't they get the same spell? Because one is for wizards only and one is for priests only? Why?

 

The difference between those spells is that Remove Magic dispels only your enemies, while Dispel Magic also dispels your party members.

Remove magic is used when your party members are standing near and you don't wish to dispel buffs from them, While Dispel is used when you aren't buffed or have an affliction on your party members like confusion or fear, to get rid of it.

Also Mages get both Dispel and Remove magic, while priests only get Dispel.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Cubiq

[Ffordesoon]

 

For example, can you tell me the difference between Dispel Magic and Remove Magic? I don't mean the differences the descriptions inform you of, but the actual, functional difference? As far as I can tell, there are none. They are the same spell. It's just that one is something that clerics get, and the other is something that wizards get. Why don't they get the same spell? Because one is for wizards only and one is for priests only? Why?

 

The difference between those spells is that Remove Magic dispels only your enemies, while Dispel Magic also dispels your party members.

Remove magic is used when your party members are standing near and you don't wish to dispel buffs from them, While Dispel is used when you aren't buffed or have an affliction on your party members like confusion or fear, to get rid of it.

Also Mages get both Dispel and Remove magic, while priests only get Dispel.

Ah.

 

See? I'm playing this thing right now, and scanning the spell descriptions like an illuminated text, and still simple stuff like this escapes me. And I am in the target audience!

[IndiraLightfoot]

Like I've said before, us PnP D&D veterans had and still has a huge advantage!

[Hassat Hunter]

Seems a lot of people neem to replay BG2 in this thread. But they wont, because 'it's a horrible game'... and then they back PoE and expect different while we all want more BG2. What?

Then there are the descriptors attached to multiple spells. Why is there a Minor Globe Of Invulnerability in the same game as Lesser Restoration? Why aren't both Minor or Lesser? Et cetera.

That's some major nitpicking there. While I suppose generalisation is nice, is that seriously an actual complaint about the game? That lesser and minor at once is hell???

Or we could take a look at the boatload of spells that all do a similar thing in a slightly different way, or sound similar but are wildly different. Spell Deflection and Spell Turning sound the same, but have notably distinct effects. I could go on.

Blame the english language. Deflection and reflection sound the same don't they? But they're completely different!

Really can't expect them to switch the laws of language and create names that sound nothing alike. Be glad they even used Turning rather than Reflection, or you would have had even more trouble with this!

It's rather hard to complain about english linguistics on a game, and I assure you, PoE will use that same crappy language too. Maybe it's not too late to get it all in German instead.

Then they come to this board and start talking about how BG2 has only one style of encounter, etc.

And actually seriously hope PoE will dumb down and be crappy and simplistic like modern systems. Yeah, I share your fears...

[Hormalakh]

I also vehemently disagree with the notion that BG2 was "counter the mage." BG2's magic system was very excellent. You could play counter the mage with such a wide array of spells, but that wasn't the only way to play.

[Ffordesoon]

@Hassat Hunter:

 

Actually, I would find "reflection" less confusing than "turning," because it's a more accurate description of what the spell does. "Turning" is vague, and could just as easily mean deflection as reflection.

[Volourn]

"See? I'm playing this thing right now, and scanning the spell descriptions like an illuminated text, and still simple stuff like this escapes me. And I am in the target audience!"

 

\Then, take the time to learn. Geez.. It's not complicated. Just pay attention, read, and learn. I know, I know. Reading and learning is the hard. And, are you the target audience? If so, they may be targeting the wrong audience. Just sayin'.

[Hassat Hunter]

Actually, I would find "reflection" less confusing than "turning," because it's a more accurate description of what the spell does. "Turning" is vague, and could just as easily mean deflection as reflection.

The big problem would be then you got Spell Deflection and Spell Reflection... 1 letter difference.

If you talk about some of the confusions you currently have with spellnames, well, that one would be a doozy!

[Karkarov]

@Mr. Magniloquent:

 

I'm more sympathetic to your argument than you might believe. Whatever BG2's spell combat is, it's not just "counter the mage," and I think that's an overgeneralization from the memory of someone who hasn't played the game in a long time rather than an accurate statement about most combat in the game. As someone who's playing it for the first time right now, I'd like to think I have more of a handle on what works and what doesn't about BG2 combat.

Unless "long time" is two months ago.... no played it pretty recently.

[Ffordesoon]

@Karkarov:

 

Ah. Well, to each his own, I guess. I personally like BG a lot more than Dragon Age, which (weirdly) has a lot of the same problems, but compounds them by not being nearly as varied. For me, anyway.

[Lephys]

Lephys, your post is an excellent example of someone wanting and attempt to force all holes to be square, because they only like using square pegs.

 

Durations matter. Combat is almost always longer than 20 seconds. Unlike a P&P game, CRPGs are strewn with extremely frequent combat. This is all compounded by a spell system in which uses per day are very limited. All of this culminates to make duration extraordinarily important. Your argument is disingenuine at best.

 

In a word of magic, protection for whole classes of damage is not unreasonable. When the duration boils down to 18 seconds and is a finite resource which incurs explicit opportunity costs of another spell...well, it's not so rediculous anymore. Particuarly when playing a character that has an HP enough to be killed a as little as a few arrows, which a fighter can produce as much as 5 per round of. Many of the spells even have caveats. Only +X class or lower, only magical, only normal...and oh yeah--18 seconds in duration. These effects are also mutually exclusive and preclude stacking. Lets not forget the many many spells which can remove these brief defenses and the many spells and forms of damage which can simply circumvent the spell entirely.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make about durations here. Spells are limited, and combat will probably last longer than 18 seconds. That's fantastic. Spells will also have the potential to be per-encounter, and even at-will, eventually, and no effects are going to last past the end of combat anyway, are they? *shrug*. Also, the specific number of seconds in my example is mostly meaningless, except to say "the duration could be quite distinctly not the entire duration of combat." I'm not saying time everything to attack animations. "Oh, they're starting to swing a sword? USE SHIELD BLOCK, NOW!". Just... a shorter duration, as opposed to a more "toggley" approach (i.e. "this will basically last until this combat is over, or until it gets dispelled"), lends itself to additional tactical decision-making that isn't present when you're mainly considering "what protections do I need for THIS fight?".

 

It's just something to consider, is all. Look at effects like True Strike. Its "duration" is very short: just one attack. But, look at the impact it can have because it's not just "here's a passive effect that makes you better at hitting." I don't think everything in the world should work just like True Strike. But, in an overall approach, a lot more things could work like that, instead of being more tailored to pre-battle/beginning-of-battle "setup" decisions.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

TOEE and NWN for starters. And, if you come back with that their 'Oifficial CVampaigns' weren't as good as BG2's that irrelevant.Spell and combat/character systems are VASTLY superior, deeper, and more complex than BG2. And, I like BG2 more than either of those games (OC wise).

 

Overall, I'll definately conceed that ToEE was the better tactical combat cRPG, though I expected that one. NWN...agreed, but again as an overall combat system. 3rd ed. was just a major improvement over 2nd Ed. Judging by spell books alone though, BG still comes out ahead by a wide margin.

 

 

It's just something to consider, is all. Look at effects like True Strike. Its "duration" is very short: just one attack. But, look at the impact it can have because it's not just "here's a passive effect that makes you better at hitting." I don't think everything in the world should work just like True Strike. But, in an overall approach, a lot more things could work like that, instead of being more tailored to pre-battle/beginning-of-battle "setup" decisions.

 

True Strike in a D20 system basically assures that the character will hit. If that caster happens to be a "Gish", then they're garunteed to hit several times. Spells like the Mantles and Protection from Normal/Magical Weapons functioned in a very similar manner. Very powerful, but very brief. If truly meaningful spells will be able to be cast repeatedly--particularly if spontaneously as the Sorcerer class does in D&D, then of course duration will matter much less. I just don't see that happening, particularly because Obsidian has stated that spells will not scale. Many strings come attached with allowing spells to be cast more frequently, and in the past has almost always resulted in such intriguing spells like "X Elemental Bolt" and little else.

[Shadenuat]

What is even a GM sucker punch? Because OP definition can't work since GM probably won't give you second, third and fourth time to beat his encounter. And then it all just escalated to "hard counters again".

 

I assume what Josh wants is to player be able to predict and understand logical consequences for possible tactical mistakes. But to do that you just need

a) Symmetrical combat system, where imba abilities happen only rarely from sources like powerful magical creatures;

b) Good (ToEE, Knights of the Chalice) level of in-game documentation.

 

Also, turn-based combat would help since it makes players value positioning and reading combat log more, but eh.

 

If we're talking about shocking encounters however, they also have value. As Spoony said in one of his videos, without some suffering and dark parts of adventuring, there can't be a sense of heroics. So it's nice to face something totally overpowering once in a while, die and re-think your strategy.

 

P.S. I'd also like to thank Mr. Magniloquent for his good posts and defending BG magic system.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Shadenuat

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

 

For example, can you tell me the difference between Dispel Magic and Remove Magic? I don't mean the differences the descriptions inform you of, but the actual, functional difference? As far as I can tell, there are none. They are the same spell. It's just that one is something that clerics get, and the other is something that wizards get. Why don't they get the same spell? Because one is for wizards only and one is for priests only? Why?

The difference between those spells is that Remove Magic dispels only your enemies, while Dispel Magic also dispels your party members.

Remove magic is used when your party members are standing near and you don't wish to dispel buffs from them, While Dispel is used when you aren't buffed or have an affliction on your party members like confusion or fear, to get rid of it.

Also Mages get both Dispel and Remove magic, while priests only get Dispel.

Ah.

 

See? I'm playing this thing right now, and scanning the spell descriptions like an illuminated text, and still simple stuff like this escapes me. And I am in the target audience!

 

 

Perhaps actually reading the spell descriptions? Right clicking on the spell tells you what it is. It says it in the first couple of sentences of the spell. If you're playing this right now, it's in the game.

 

A Dispel Magic removes magical effects upon anyone within the area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remove Magic. This is the combat version of Dispel Magic, it will only affect opponents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is also explained in the manual. Also notice that I have Imoen selected in both cases and she's a Mage. And, the game comes with Quick Reference cards which also has the Cleric and Wizard spells listed. If you're having problems with stuff like this, as Josh Sawyer said with PoE, If you don't like to read, don't play this game.

[Ffordesoon]

Read it plenty of times. Got it, then forgot it, then got it again. I'm well aware of exactly how to access the spell descriptions in every case, and I've studied the ones that trip me up multiple times. Stuff still occasionally leaks out, though, as the difference between Dispel and Remove Magic did for me when I wrote that post. Total brain fart.

 

I would rather be honest about my failings than act like I'm so supercool that I can memorize everything about every spell at once. I find that kind of attitude unhelpful at best. I'm not perfect, and neither is anyone else.

 

Are we done, or is the snide implication that I can't comprehend written English a hill you're willing to die on?

 

EDIT: Also, I'm playing the EE. No QRCs.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Ffordesoon

[Karkarov]

@Karkarov:

 

Ah. Well, to each his own, I guess. I personally like BG a lot more than Dragon Age, which (weirdly) has a lot of the same problems, but compounds them by not being nearly as varied. For me, anyway.

Here is the other problem and why I will say mechanically Dragon Age Origins is the far and away better game than Baldur's Gate 2.  Baldur's Gate 2 you had mages, clerics, and druids.  Those classes had lots and lots of spells and lots and lots of ways to use those spells.  What about Fighters?  Paladins?  Rangers?  Some of them might have a couple spells, but they were hardly deep, highly limited, and mostly all of those characters ended up in one block called "Person who hits things in melee".  Of course you have cheese classes like Monks too but you know what how deep are they "really"? 

 

So aside from the boring repetitive combat there is very little in the way of character development (unless you happen to be a caster).  Dragon Age?  Everyone has abilities, different weapons could have major effects on how you played, different spell types worked differently, no two characters had to play or were the same just because the had the same class.  It is just more varied and interesting to play on all levels.  Mechanically it also plays better.  Now does Baldur's Gate 2 have a better story?  Sure.  But I am not "playing" the story I am "playing" the game mechanics.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Karkarov

[Hassat Hunter]

And despite all that... combat in Dragon Age still sucked balls, and they had to resort to ridicilous combat-bloat, and you had to use your melee powers constantly to make somewhat of a dent.

Maybe it's just me, but I like to think. If it's just MMO "work off your skills like this" and you repeat that infinitively, I might aswell take click once and attack forever, so I can focus on actually using skills (spells) where I need to think about when or how to use them.

 

Food for thought.

[Cubiq]

Speaking of "food for thought"

here's mine:

 

I imagine it's going to be like Icewind Dale 2 since Sawyer was also part of that project.

As far as i can remember there weren't any sucker punch fights and i don't think many wizards had instant kill spells.

I think if people want to argue why a game needs those things they should deconstruct Icewind dale 2 and explain why it didn't work there.

[Hassat Hunter]

Re-reads own post...

 

Ehh... while "combat-bloat" is also appropriate (those dwarf tunnels or endgame!) I of course meant Hitpoint-bloat.

 

I can't honestly say without lying that I find Dragon Age 1's mechanics better than Baldur's Gate. Quite au contraire!

[Jarrakul]

I find DA to have a fundamentally better combat system ruined by even-worse-than-BG balance. Playing as a rogue, at least, felt like I had a bunch of abilities that could be useful in any given situation, but I had to figure out which ones would be useful when. But then the mage just dropped an Ice Storm and made all that irrelevant (until the endgame, when I suddenly found myself borderline invincible for reasons which are still somewhat beyond me). At least when that happened in BG, I could go "yeah, but he can't remove a trap." As much as I dislike balancing out-of-combat prowess against in-combat prowess, it was still better than just not balancing them at all.

 

DA1 also suffered from a severe lack of precise information, if I recall correctly, which made it difficult to know what would be effective when until you'd used it multiple times, which made strategizing difficult. DA2 fixed that problem, but introduced... others.

 

As for BG2... it is an oversimplification to claim that mage fights are "counter or die". But they're close, especially as you get into the late game. The difference between having the magic true sight + breach combo (or just an inquisitor) and not having it is huge. It's not quite win vs. die, but it's by far the biggest difficulty swing from knowing a specific spell since BG1 basilisks and Protection from Petrification. While I do like a lot about the BG2 magic system in general, I think mage fights would be a lot more fun if they were more consistently somewhere between the two extremes of countered and non-countered. That doesn't mean there can't be counters, but they should be softer, as should un-countered defenses.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Read it plenty of times. Got it, then forgot it, then got it again. I'm well aware of exactly how to access the spell descriptions in every case, and I've studied the ones that trip me up multiple times. Stuff still occasionally leaks out, though, as the difference between Dispel and Remove Magic did for me when I wrote that post. Total brain fart.

 

I would rather be honest about my failings than act like I'm so supercool that I can memorize everything about every spell at once. I find that kind of attitude unhelpful at best. I'm not perfect, and neither is anyone else.

 

Are we done, or is the snide implication that I can't comprehend written English a hill you're willing to die on?

 

EDIT: Also, I'm playing the EE. No QRCs.

 

I'm saying the descriptions are in game as well in the manual. Even in the EE games with their manuals, they tell you what the spell is and give a complete list of Wizard and Priest spells. While the EE games may not have quick reference cards (seems another small failing on Overhauls part), although the GOG versions do, the list is still in the manuals. Also, it's no implication you can't read or comprehend English. It's more read the manual or spell descriptions. They tell you what they do.

 

From BG EE manual:

 

Dispel Magic. Even Elminster explains that you and your companions are also effected by this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remove Magic

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's going to be a lot of reading in PoE. And I expect the sort of manuals, with spell descriptions as it was in the original IE games.