Tomes are lame

[ravenshrike]

 wizards use crystallized souls embedded into books

Huh. Well, looks like my evil rat****ing bastard playthrough is definitely going to be a wizard. 

 

I like being magic, not a nerd.

Bwahahhahahahhhahaaa!

[Lephys]

I like being magic, not a nerd.

Meh... just 'cause Wizards use books doesn't mean Wizards aren't magical.

 

It's a bit like a wizard sort of "summoning"/calling lightning from clouds in the air to strike people, instead of simply producing lightning bolts from his fingertips. Just because he's not actually generating the lightning with his own body/mana/etc. doesn't mean he, himself, isn't magical, and that just the stormcloud is magical.

 

It's just a focus. In that way, it's very similar to a sword for a Fighter, as someone else already pointed out. Sure, the sword isn't magical, but the sword is only effective and/or only does what it does because of the presence of the Fighter and his skill.

 

Maybe you like being powerful, and not a skill/technique nerd, when it comes to a Fighter? The Fighter has to study how to make the sword do what he wants it to do, to achieve great effects. Same with the Wizard.

 

The Grimoire doesn't really produce magic. It's just the conduit, instead of Wizard bodies.

 

I very much understand the preferential issue. I prefer the "I just channel/shape this magical energy with my bare hands" approach, as well. However, I really think it's an unnecessary exaggeration to pretend like the Wizard's mundane and the Grimoire is all-powerful. It's not a genie in a bottle. It doesn't grant wishes. Give a Fighter the grimoire, and even explain to him how to read the spells and such, and he still can't do anything with it.

 

I will also say that, in a PnP environment, it's a lot crappier. You get captured or something, and get your stuff taken away, and suddenly you can't do anything at all. Not that that can't be implemented into a cRPG, but, it isn't just going to happen frequently. Most of the time, you're going to be dealing with a pretty "standard" combat template, in that you will be fully geared (you will have your focus in your possession).

 

So, *shrug*. I don't think you're crazy, but I believe PoE wizards are far more than just nerds with bazookas that are disguised as books.

[Stun]

Personally, I rather enjoy it when a game throws an occasional scenario at you where you're stripped of your material possessions and forced to fight without your precious gear. (like a "Captured!" situation) Keep in mind that such scenarios don't just hinder spell-book-using Mages. They also hurt melee specialists, who must now fight without weapons. And Clerics, who can't cast their spells either since they've been stripped of their holy symbols.

 

Inevitably though, these situations never last long in video games. Usually, in the very prison cell you're in, or immediately thereafter, you begin finding loot.... like spare weapons, spell scrolls, or a conveniently placed corpse of a dead priest who's clutching a holy symbol etc.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Stun

[teknoman2]

 

I don't know if that's relevant, but I read several times that at some point a good deal of low-level/frequently usable spell would become "free", i.e. not needing to put them in some books and the possibility to use them several time at each encounter.

Low level spells will eventually become "free use" as the caster levels up but afaik, all (mage) spells will require a tome.

 

exactly. a lv1 wizard must have magic missile in his book to cast it 1 time per battle. a lv10 wizard will still have to keep the spell in the book in order to cast it, but he can cast it unlimited times and use it to mow down trash mobs

[Suburban-Fox]

Personally, I hate the sorcerer. I've always seen it as a wizard for people who don't want the bother of having to learn spells, and while I'm not against it as a concept, I hate the fact that it's more or less equal to the wizard in every department. If I was writing D&D, I'd make the sorcerer pay dearly for its lack of the wizard's restriction by making it less powerful.

 

Power doesn't come for free, and if you want to throw fireballs and incinerate people with your mind, you should have to pay for it. Clerics pay for it by doing the work of the deity whom they worship, and mages pay for it by having spell books and wands.

[PrimeJunta]

Sorcerers are by far superior to wizards, if – and that's a big if – you know the spells well enough to give her the optimal selection. A sorc can unload all barrels; a wizard will very frequently be in a situation where he's out of the spells he'd need but has many slots full of ones he doesn't, so in practice his spell-casting potential is much lower.

 

And to continue in my recent "D&D sucks in most ways" vein, both classes are designed badly. The wizard needs tedious bookkeeping (Vancian casting, yuck) and will almost never be able to cast to his full potential because there will always be some 'wrong' spells memorized, while a sorcerer is way overpowered if designed well and severely gimped by poor choice of spells, and also completely mismatched relative to the wizard. For spits and giggles, play SoZ or IWD2 with two or three sorcs in the party, specializing each of them into a suitable school. (In SoZ, prestige class them into Arcane Scholars while you're at it.) Once you get level 3 spells, you steamroll.

 

And yeah, I love P:E's solution: learn and pick spells like a wizard but cast them like a sorc, and keep it all under control by limiting the current selection with the grimoire. It's simple and brilliant and if done well will replicate the 'feel' of playing both, in a good way.

[Stun]

Sorcerers are by far superior to wizards, if – and that's a big if – you know the spells well enough to give her the optimal selection. A sorc can unload all barrels; a wizard will very frequently be in a situation where he's out of the spells he'd need but has many slots full of ones he doesn't, so in practice his spell-casting potential is much lower.

 

And to continue in my recent "D&D sucks in most ways" vein, both classes are designed badly. The wizard needs tedious bookkeeping (Vancian casting, yuck) and will almost never be able to cast to his full potential because there will always be some 'wrong' spells memorized, while a sorcerer is way overpowered if designed well and severely gimped by poor choice of spells, and also completely mismatched relative to the wizard. For spits and giggles, play SoZ or IWD2 with two or three sorcs in the party, specializing each of them into a suitable school. (In SoZ, prestige class them into Arcane Scholars while you're at it.) Once you get level 3 spells, you steamroll.

 

And yeah, I love P:E's solution: learn and pick spells like a wizard but cast them like a sorc, and keep it all under control by limiting the current selection with the grimoire. It's simple and brilliant and if done well will replicate the 'feel' of playing both, in a good way.

LOL

 

Hilarious that you'd cite SoZ, as one of its Sorcerer mechanics flat out eliminates your main gripe here. Sorcerers in SoZ, when leveling up, can replace those "wrong" spells they chose with different ones.

 

Of course that still doesn't keep SoZ from being a complete piece of crud; a poor man's Elder Scrolls (which you probably love, since mages in the ES games don't have to deal with "tedious book keeping")

Edited April 22, 2014 by Stun

[constantine]

The Sorcerer is a FREAK and an insult to the Mage !

 

 

Knowledge and handling of magic is the absolute power in a fantasy RP setting. Mages are anything but nerdy. They are respected, feared, admired, frowned upon, viewed with jealousy or even idolized.

 

 

 

And if you were addressing Edwin now, you'd have turned into a hamster forced to live in Minsc's pocket for the rest of your few, hairy years !!

[Lephys]

Sorcerers are by far superior to wizards, if – and that's a big if – you know the spells well enough to give her the optimal selection. A sorc can unload all barrels; a wizard will very frequently be in a situation where he's out of the spells he'd need but has many slots full of ones he doesn't, so in practice his spell-casting potential is much lower.

In a good quality PnP setting (with a good DM and such), the Sorcerer really feels that lack of spell selection. However, in a "heavily just combat" environment as in a lot of cRPGs, not so much.

 

And yeah, what Junta said. That's actually one reason I think PoE's choice to simply limit the number of Level X spells you can learn upon level up, and the number of Level X spells you can cast per day/encounter is as amazing as it is simple. In PnP DnD, as a Wizard (I always played a Wizard), you almost ALWAYS end up not even getting to really use all your memorized spells to much effect at all, mainly just due to a lot of chance. It's not that they're not all circumstantially useful. It's just that, statistically, you almost ALWAYS find yourself wanting more of a different spell, under the circumstances, and less of some other spell you're hardly needing under the given circumstances.

 

That was one thing I really thought was going a bit too far with Wizard limitations: having to fill each spell slot with an individual spell. Heck, even if you can freely buy/steal/learn a plethora of spells per level, so that when you're Level 3, you know 20 LvL-2 spells instead of like 4, you could STILL simply limit the spells at your disposal to a number of spell slots, but allow the free casting of X number of any of those spells per day. If you put Shocking Grasp and Grease in there, 'cause you only have 2 individual spell slots, you could still have an "ammo" count of 7 spells per day. Thus, you could cast 1 Shocking Grasp and 6 Grease, or 2 Shocking grasp and 5 Grease, or 7 Shocking Grasp and 0 Grease... etc. Any combination of the above.

 

Not sure if that's what PoE is doing or not. I can't recall if you can basically fit a plethora of Level X spells in a tome, or if the per-level spell slots are limited to relatively small numbers (like 8-or-so, tops, when there might be 20+ spells of that level, total, in existence).

 

Either way, it was always a bit silly to say "Okay, I've redundantly prepared Ghost Image in my head 3 times, even though they're all identical, but I can only cast Fireball ONE time today, because I didn't prepare 3 instances of Fireball in my head." You should just either prepare the spell, or don't. Then, you either have the capacity to cast another instance of that spell, or you don't.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Sorcerers are by far superior to wizards, if – and that's a big if – you know the spells well enough to give her the optimal selection. A sorc can unload all barrels; a wizard will very frequently be in a situation where he's out of the spells he'd need but has many slots full of ones he doesn't, so in practice his spell-casting potential is much lower.

 

I prefer the Wizard's bonus feats to the Sorcerer's spontaneous casting. Given the nature of the beast, I always preferred my sparse spells to work without question when needed, rather than just be a kind of grenade launcher. The level of slower progression for Sorcerers can really hurt sometimes as well. That I tend to specialize (almost always Illusion) in a school that provides versatility...I never found myself hurting.

 

I wouldn't say Sorcerer's are superior as much as I would say that they are more convenient. Getting caught off-guard doesn't happen enough for me to need to true benefit of spontaneous casting. Between specialization bonuses, bonus feats, faster progression, and the use of meta-magic like Extend Spell, I'll take the Wizard every time. That's D&D though. Pathfinder makes the Sorcerer argument significantly more persuasive.

 

Either way, it was always a bit silly to say "Okay, I've redundantly prepared Ghost Image in my head 3 times, even though they're all identical, but I can only cast Fireball ONE time today, because I didn't prepare 3 instances of Fireball in my head." You should just either prepare the spell, or don't. Then, you either have the capacity to cast another instance of that spell, or you don't.

 

Very much agreed.

[Stun]

Either way, it was always a bit silly to say "Okay, I've redundantly prepared Ghost Image in my head 3 times, even though they're all identical, but I can only cast Fireball ONE time today, because I didn't prepare 3 instances of Fireball in my head." You should just either prepare the spell, or don't. Then, you either have the capacity to cast another instance of that spell, or you don't.

Well, to be fair, this IS one of the things from Pen and Paper that's never explained or implemented accurately in cRPGs. In Pen and Paper the process is a little more arduous than simply "Oops, I only memorized this spell once, therefore, I can only cast it once before it's wiped clean from my memory". The Vancian spell preparation process that goes on the night before typically involves the wizard actually preparing each instance of that spell (pretty much casting each one in its entirety, spell components and all, except for the final few incantations, which he saves for battle when he's ready to actually unleash the arcane energies that he has built up from the previous night's prep-session).

 

And I don't find this process any more "silly" than, say, a cooldown system where it's: "OK, I just cast fireball. Now I have to count backwards from to 30 to 0 in my head before I can cast it again!)

 

 

But back on topic. I think the Grimoire system that PoE is going to be using sounds great. And I'm fairly certain that even the Die-hard Vancian-ists are going to like it. Because it's not a whole lot different under the hood than the vancian model. You're still preparing the spells you're going to use ahead of time (if you didn't put Fireball in your grimoire, then no Fireball for you!). There's still a the Per-day/per encounter limitation. You still have to search the game world to find new spells. etc.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

Well, to be fair, this IS one of the things from Pen and Paper that's never explained or implemented accurately in cRPGs. In Pen and Paper the process is a little more arduous than simply "Oops, I only memorized this spell once, therefore, I can only cast it once before it's wiped clean from my memory". The Vancian spell preparation process that goes on the night before typically involves the wizard actually preparing each instance of that spell (pretty much casting each one in its entirety, spell components and all, except for the final few incantations, which he saves for battle when he's ready to actually unleash the arcane energies that he has built up from the previous night's prep-session).

If magic were real, and it just worked that way, I'd say "fair enough." However, the second I think "this process was completely invented in the context of 'we're making a set of game rules,' I can't help but find it a tad arbitrarily rigid. Just a little, for reasons I pointed out above.

 

And I don't find this process any more "silly" than, say, a cooldown system where it's: "OK, I just cast fireball. Now I have to count backwards from to 30 to 0 in my head before I can cast it again!)

While they can certainly be used just as arbitrarily, I don't find the sheer notion of cooldowns silly at all. Essentially, they're just an abstraction of fatigue. Granted, when used in the wrong context, they make no sense. In systems in which mana is actually stored up in the mage's body (or wherever it gets stored), exerting yourself so much would result in short-term fatigue. It's just like maxing out in weight-lifting. You might can lift 300lbs, one time... obviously you can do so MORE than one time (unless your arms tear off and/or you die, in which case you've gone a bit impractical with the specific definition of "can," ), but, if you wait a short amount of time and rest your muscles, you can lift that 300lbs a second time.

 

Again, since magic is completely made up according to the goal of the specific lore/system, nothing dictates that it wouldn't essentially work like an intangible muscle, much like mental fatigue, etc.

 

The goal of "you have to prepare this 3 times to be able to cast it three times throughout the next day" is simply to limit the Wizard's spell access at any given time. However, that's already limited by like 5 things, and I don't think the extra layer (specific instances) was really necessary, especially considering that any other factor could easily be tweaked to compensate for the absence of that. I'd rather only be able to cast 3 spells per day, out of two different ones (in any combination totaling 3 casts of that spell-set) than to be able to cast 6 spells per day, but have to prepare, ahead of time, exactly how many of each I'm going to be able to cast later on, to be honest. Just constrain versatility as much as you want up front, and cut out the convoluted middle man of instance-based preparation.

 

Each spell is some complex thing you've got to prepare after rest, that's fine. It takes a goodly amount of time to mentally do that, that's fine too. Why must each instance be prepared before hand? A Fighter trains to make sure he can muster extremely precise movements with his sword arm/body when the time comes, yet he just prepares that form. He doesn't prepare multiple instances of that form. Nothing else in the universe works like that. You just repeat something.

 

A computer doesn't load a sentence into RAM 3 times just to post it to the screen three times. It just posts what's in RAM two additional times.

 

So yeah, I don't buy that. Completely arbitrary, really. But yeah, sorry... digression.

[Stun]

While they can certainly be used just as arbitrarily, I don't find the sheer notion of cooldowns silly at all. Essentially, they're just an abstraction of fatigue.

But they're not an abstraction of fatigue, since each individual spell is on its own timer. For example, you're a wizard and you've got a bunch of spells. Ok. You cast Fireball. Fireball now is on cool down. But that doesn't stop you from immediately casting inferno which is a far more powerful version of fireball. If cooldowns were an abstraction of fatigue then logic would dictate that you wouldn't be able to do that.

 

No, Lets not sugar coat stupid mechanics. We all know the point of cooldowns: To keep mages relevant in an action-RPG... to keep them competitive, minute by minute with Melee characters (because heaven forbid mages actually be *different* than their melee counterparts)

 

 

 

Again, since magic is completely made up according to the goal of the specific lore/system, nothing dictates that it wouldn't essentially work like an intangible muscle, much like mental fatigue, etc.

I don't disagree. Which is why I don't oppose a well done Mana-based spell casting system, which IS a true fatigue abstraction. I just oppose the cooldown system... because it's NOT.

 

The goal of "you have to prepare this 3 times to be able to cast it three times throughout the next day" is simply to limit the Wizard's spell access at any given time. However, that's already limited by like 5 things, and I don't think the extra layer (specific instances) was really necessary, especially considering that any other factor could easily be tweaked to compensate for the absence of that. I'd rather only be able to cast 3 spells per day, out of two different ones (in any combination totaling 3 casts of that spell-set) than to be able to cast 6 spells per day, but have to prepare, ahead of time, exactly how many of each I'm going to be able to cast later on, to be honest. Just constrain versatility as much as you want up front, and cut out the convoluted middle man of instance-based preparation.

Theoretically, the more powerful magic is, the more limits on it you're going to need in order to maintain <ahem> Balance </ahem>. Sadly, most modern RPGs dilute magic and thus these limits become pointless practices... arbitrary even.

 

But in, say, the IE games, Magic was super-powerful, so these limits were indeed needed, and DID make total logical sense.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

@Lephys and others, the conceit behind Vancian casting is that spells are discrete entities. Like pokemon if you will. The wizard "memorizing" a spell is capturing that entity in his mind, ready to be released, and once released, it's gone. It's totally not like remembering a thought or knowing a muscle movement. More like, I dunno, putting a genie in a bottle and then releasing it when needed.

 

It works in Vance's fiction, but as a gameplay mechanic it's bloody tedious.

 

@Mr. Magniloquent, yeah, I do find the sorcerer limiting as well. As I said earlier, both classes are badly designed. Another downside of the sorcerer is that it doesn't fit the metaphysics of Vancian spell-casting, which only makes sense if you think of spells as bottled-up entities. There's no problem with the classic classes -- divine casters are given those entities by the gods they serve, arcane ones pull them out from wherever they come through skill and knowledge. If this is the case, how come sorcerers have a flexible supply of each type of entity? It makes no sense.

 

I.e., the sorcerer and her divine counterparts are yet another attempt to patch a clunky, unenjoyable mechanic in D&D. As usual, it solves some problems but introduces others, and makes the entire system grow yet more hair and become yet less coherent. OD&D worked as a system; no edition since has (with the possible exception of 4e which I haven't played, and which I don't want to because it doesn't focus on the things I want from a PnP system.)

[constantine]

Replying to those who find D&D spell memorizing out of the ordinary, I can pinpoint you in AD&D 2nd edition PHB (Player's Handbook) where it is explained in detail how & why spell memorizing works like it does. Still, it is obvious they tried to explain something that they wanted to work in that particular game-friendly way. However the explanation is there and makes sense in this 'magical' world.

 

 

 

As for PoE spell memorizing, Mages will have a finite number of castings per encounter/rest and can select to cast any spell they know among their list, for as long as they have castings left.

 

On higher levels for the Mage, low-level spells will become at-will powers, able to be cast indefinitely.

[PrimeJunta]

@constantine, yes, they do and it does. However, it stopped making sense the minute they introduced the sorcerer. That IMO is the biggest downside of the class, even if mechanically it's more enjoyable to play.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

In my DnD/Pathfinder games, we use a point system similar to psionics for the spontaneous casters. It wasn't perfect by any means, but it made more lore sense.

[Lephys]

To be fair, "why" and "how" are two different things. I get how that whole spell-preparation thing works the way it does. And that's fine. I just don't get why it works how it does, since the "why" in this case is "because someone decided it worked this way." It's not like there's some real-life basis for it.

 

I mean, they could've had the system have Wizards metabolizing their spells, into little spheres/tokens they had to touch or have near them while releasing them with either the somatic or verbal components. Would've made just as much sense, and then you could intuitively say "obviously if I only have 2 Fireball tokens, I can't cast Fireball 3 times." It already works that way with material components. I think, at least in some spells, that you use those when you cast the spell, correct? So, technically, you can prepare 5 instances of a given spell, while you only have 1 instance of the material components to cast that spell. etc.

 

Anywho... as has been pointed out, PoE's system is REMARKABLY similar, and still like so much better in some ways. Which is kind of exactly my point. I just don't get the decision to forge the lore into "you actually have to prepare a specific number of instances of a spell" on top of everything else.

 

I understand the lore. I don't understand the choice to create that lore, in the context of the function of that lore within an actual game ruleset that, I feel, is adversely affected by it.

[Nonek]

I have to wonder after reading the update on Wizard's and Druid's again whether the formulae (spells) that are used in grimoires can be inscribed on other materials, it seems possible if i'm reading this correctly:

 

 

Update by Josh Sawyer, Project Director

 

Wizards

 

Typical Wizard Grimoire

 

Wizards are researchers and experimenters. Like animancers, their understanding of the spirit world and soul energy is technical and scientific. For this reasons, wizards have a skill focus in both Lore and Mechanics. Also like animancers, wizards rely on special tools to achieve their effects. Specifically, wizards use grimoires, arcane books made with rare materials that can absorb and temporarily hold fragments of ambient soul energy. Unlike priests and druids, wizards do not personally shape the magic that is released. Instead, their grimoires' spell pages do most of the work. The wizard's specialty is in understanding how to help the magic flow in and out of the grimoire without going haywire.

 

Perhaps in other cultures spells are inscribed onto staves, or even onto the body of the caster for those who wish for a more Sorceror like arcane protagonist, it seems like it might be possible at least, maybe in the sequel. With appropriate changes to the grimoire changing mechanic of course, attunement, focusing or what have you?

Edited April 25, 2014 by Nonek

[Stun]

To be fair, "why" and "how" are two different things. I get how that whole spell-preparation thing works the way it does. And that's fine. I just don't get why it works how it does, since the "why" in this case is "because someone decided it worked this way." It's not like there's some real-life basis for it.

Well, as you point out, the "how" is easily explained. Usually by simply reading the rule-book and such.

 

The "why" is a much trickier thing, since it's totally dependent on the campaign in question (usually the lore). In the Forgotten Realms, it has to do with convoluted laws of the multiverse involving the Weave and Mystra or whatever.

 

But this is a moot point. Obsidian is using a fairly unique system and frankly, I'm getting a good vibe from it. It *sounds* pretty darn cool. And if it ends up working well, I really won't care about any "whys", will you?

[Mor]

^ One of my university tutories really liked Braondon sandersons books, who had this outlook on magic systems that I think covers well that "why and how" argument. Here: http://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/

[Lephys]

I personally adore Sanderson's take on magic. I know that's mostly just preference.

 

As for the "why and how" argument, I wasn't really trying to pose some over-arching philosophical question on magic systems in general. I was simply commenting on the idea that the "why" behind the "how," specifically in the D&D spell-preparation rules, is a bit silly to me, considering it wasn't just for some story, even, but actually directly fuels an interactive game.

 

If it's just some lore, and that's it, then I don't care if it's the most convoluted, impractical thing in the world. That's why I pointed out that I'm fine with the Vancian spell preparation from a sheerly lore standpoint (I get how it works), but simply take issue with why it was decided it would work that way (to make playing a Wizard downright annoying unless your DM always compensates for raw probability, perhaps?)

 

Anywho, it's mostly preference-oriented, and it was definitely a bit of a tangent. My apologies. It isn't really a moot point, though, as it what sparked the comparative analysis was the fact that PoE's system is so similar: I was pointing out how significant I felt the minor differences were. For what it's worth.

[Volourn]

"(to make playing a Wizard downright annoying"

\

LMAO Playing a wizard was NEVER 'annoying'. Are you kidding me? That is a silly statement with no basis in fact.

[constantine]

I'll say it again, the sorcerer was a very bad call imo. Better it was reserved for monstrous, non-PC races.

 

Just another 3rd edition miscalculation. Golden D&D is Ad&D 2nd paired with optional rule-books and/or house rules (imo).

 

 

 

And I'm grateful such a silly thing as the sorcerer is not present in PoE.

[Mr Moonlight]

I'll say it again, the sorcerer was a very bad call imo. Better it was reserved for monstrous, non-PC races.

 

Just another 3rd edition miscalculation. Golden D&D is Ad&D 2nd paired with optional rule-books and/or house rules (imo).

 

 

 

And I'm grateful such a silly thing as the sorcerer is not present in PoE.

yeah, how dare someone have a different idea on how a fantasy element should play compared to your ancient-and-therefore-perfect, enlighted opinion.