Are spells complex enough?

[morhilane]

 

As long as it doesn't have the indefinitely stacking immunity spells + the corresponding counterspells of BG2 I'm happy. Whoever designed that system...

 

Eh, I think PoE could use a bit of counter magic. At least a Dispel Spell or something would be nice.

The Wizard can use any Non-AoE-Damage Spell he can get IMO.

 

Can someone confirm/deconfirm my gut feeling while we're at it? Is the damage output of most wizard spells a bit mediocre, or ist that just me?

Throwing Fireballs just feels kinda lackluster to me.

 

 

Wizards have a dispel (well, half a dispel): Arcane Dampener suppress buff on enemies, it's a level 3 spell. Priests get the other side of the dispel with Suppress Affliction (level 2 spell), that one remove negatives effects on allies.

 

There is also a bunch of chants/spells/abilities on various classes to counter specific buff/negative effects. For example, Chanters have an invocation that lower enemies DT, that could counter a Priest's Armor of Faith buff.

 

As for spell damage, it's not mediocre on paper. It's just that it works like weapons: misses, graze, hit, crits and DT/DR reduce the final number. AoE are calculated per targets too. Basically, if the number is low, it's probably because it's a graze and/or the targets has high resistance against the damage type of that spell. I've seen a fireball deal 86 damage on a target in PoE beta, just like I've seen 5 damage on the target right beside the other one.

Edited October 7, 2014 by morhilane

[Lephys]

Wizards have a dispel (well, half a dispel): Arcane Dampener suppress buff on enemies, it's a level 3 spell. Priests get the other side of the dispel with Suppress Affliction (level 2 spell), that one remove negatives effects on allies.

 

There is also a bunch of chants/spells/abilities on various classes to counter specific buff/negative effects. For example, Chanters have an invocation that lower enemies DT, that could counter a Priest's Armor of Faith buff.

I like all that a lot more than just "BEGONE, MAGIC!" dispel. Wiping everything that could possibly be beneficial to your enemies isn't a tactical choice. It's like Samuel Adams... it's always a good decision.

[anameforobsidian]

I like the AoE dispel, because it creates some very tough tactical decisions.  I'm playing BG1 as an inquisitor (thanks tutu), and dispel is useful, but you have to weigh its affects on your enemies vs. it's affects on your party.   Is it really worth wiping haste out of your frontliners to get rid of that stoneskin when you know there's another contigency prepared anyways?

 

That said, I'm not really into the whole rock, paper, scissors thing.

[gkathellar]

 

Wizards have a dispel (well, half a dispel): Arcane Dampener suppress buff on enemies, it's a level 3 spell. Priests get the other side of the dispel with Suppress Affliction (level 2 spell), that one remove negatives effects on allies.

 

There is also a bunch of chants/spells/abilities on various classes to counter specific buff/negative effects. For example, Chanters have an invocation that lower enemies DT, that could counter a Priest's Armor of Faith buff.

I like all that a lot more than just "BEGONE, MAGIC!" dispel. Wiping everything that could possibly be beneficial to your enemies isn't a tactical choice. It's like Samuel Adams... it's always a good decision.

 

 

Well, it's a decision when it might be useful to have the other one around. Remember Remove Magic in BG2? It was always a tough choice, deciding whether to memorize one more Remove Magic, or one more Dispel Magic. "Just remove negative effects on allies" actually strikes me as more boring. I mean, that's always the right choice.

[morhilane]

 

 

Wizards have a dispel (well, half a dispel): Arcane Dampener suppress buff on enemies, it's a level 3 spell. Priests get the other side of the dispel with Suppress Affliction (level 2 spell), that one remove negatives effects on allies.

 

There is also a bunch of chants/spells/abilities on various classes to counter specific buff/negative effects. For example, Chanters have an invocation that lower enemies DT, that could counter a Priest's Armor of Faith buff.

I like all that a lot more than just "BEGONE, MAGIC!" dispel. Wiping everything that could possibly be beneficial to your enemies isn't a tactical choice. It's like Samuel Adams... it's always a good decision.

 

 

Well, it's a decision when it might be useful to have the other one around. Remember Remove Magic in BG2? It was always a tough choice, deciding whether to memorize one more Remove Magic, or one more Dispel Magic. "Just remove negative effects on allies" actually strikes me as more boring. I mean, that's always the right choice.

 

 

You actually have more tough choices in PoE. The first one is to decide if the spell is worth putting in one of the four spell slots of the grimoire and the other if the spell is worth using in a fight compared to the other three spells that share per-rest cast with it while taking "adventuring day" into considerations.

[Lephys]

I like the AoE dispel, because it creates some very tough tactical decisions.  I'm playing BG1 as an inquisitor (thanks tutu), and dispel is useful, but you have to weigh its affects on your enemies vs. it's affects on your party.   Is it really worth wiping haste out of your frontliners to get rid of that stoneskin when you know there's another contigency prepared anyways?

 

That said, I'm not really into the whole rock, paper, scissors thing.

This is true. One good thing about it wiping everything is that you do have to weigh the loss of beneficial effects versus the elimination of harmful ones. BUT, it's a two-sided coin. On the other side, you have the fact that that weight is actually just tied to anything AOE that doesn't discriminate.

 

I'd almost like to see a sort of "eye for an eye" dispel that needs to remove a friendly effect for every negative effect it removes. That might be cool.

 

Well, it's a decision when it might be useful to have the other one around. Remember Remove Magic in BG2? It was always a tough choice, deciding whether to memorize one more Remove Magic, or one more Dispel Magic. "Just remove negative effects on allies" actually strikes me as more boring. I mean, that's always the right choice.

This is true, but that tough choice remains even without any dispel at all. You still have to choose between making fog, or hurting things with fire, or hurting multiple things with lightning, or boosting your allies, etc. That's just the nature of limited spell slots vs. a larger number of spell options.

 

Don't get me wrong, though. I agree that a no-brainer ability like "Just remove negative effects on allies" would be boring. Or, rather, ONLY having that type of dispel would be boring. It's not really inherently boring, so much. So long as you still must select your target, and choose when to cast it, etc. That, and you can always have various levels of potency. Maybe the level of your dispel is compared to the level of the effect, and its effect lessens with larger gaps. Maybe it can remove a larger number of lower-lvl effects, and a smaller number of larger-lvl ones. Maybe it functions very interestingly. Maybe it's kind of like chain lightning, instead of just "this circle gets hit." So, if you want to hit mostly allies, you have to launch it at them while they're sort of in-line with one another. Etc.

 

The options for making dispel interesting stretch far beyond just "does it only do good things, or does it remove all things in a radius?"

[ShadySands]

 

 

As long as it doesn't have the indefinitely stacking immunity spells + the corresponding counterspells of BG2 I'm happy. Whoever designed that system...

Eh, I think PoE could use a bit of counter magic. At least a Dispel Spell or something would be nice.

The Wizard can use any Non-AoE-Damage Spell he can get IMO.

 

Can someone confirm/deconfirm my gut feeling while we're at it? Is the damage output of most wizard spells a bit mediocre, or ist that just me?

Throwing Fireballs just feels kinda lackluster to me.

I think most of the wizard spells are pretty weak but I haven't played much on the new build so I don't know if that has changed. But I like magic to be pretty powerful since it's so limited

[Zeckul]

 

As long as it doesn't have the indefinitely stacking immunity spells + the corresponding counterspells of BG2 I'm happy. Whoever designed that system...

 

Eh, I think PoE could use a bit of counter magic. At least a Dispel Spell or something would be nice.

The Wizard can use any Non-AoE-Damage Spell he can get IMO.

Sure, I just don't want to have high-level mage battles consisting of figuring out in what order to cast specific immunity disabling spells. That was obscure and frustrating.

 

Actually I don't think PoE is going in this direction but just felt like expressing the opinion anyway. Talking for talking.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Zeckul

[Sensuki]

The BG2 Mage battles were one of the best things about the gameplay, however it could be done in a more elegant fashion such as "high resistance", rather than complete immunity.

[gkathellar]

The other thing is to make sure everyone can contribute. Fighting mages in BG2 often came down to "dispel immunity spells, keep them down while otherwise-helpless fighters do the dirty work." Immunity spells aren't such a big deal if there's a large suiteof counters against them.

 

And really, I could stand to have EVERYONE cracking mountains in half and ripping souls out with a glare and breathing out tornados at high levels.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

As for spell damage, it's not mediocre on paper. It's just that it works like weapons: misses, graze, hit, crits and DT/DR reduce the final number. AoE are calculated per targets too. Basically, if the number is low, it's probably because it's a graze and/or the targets has high resistance against the damage type of that spell. I've seen a fireball deal 86 damage on a target in PoE beta, just like I've seen 5 damage on the target right beside the other one.

 

 

There are two main factors in why wizard damage is so mediocre.

1. Mr. Sawyer wishes it so.
2. Graze. On paper, a purely average wizard against an equivalent opponent has a 50% chance to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 5% chance to critical. Since the wizard has an innately low accuracy, this is actually closer to 55% to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 0% chance to critical against an "average" equivalent opponent. It gets worse when you're against something that is better than average as you might imagine.

Yikes. With a >50% chance to do half of your gimped damage very few times per day....and you get one mediocre bit of output. Factor in that a note-worthy fraction of your spells will not be offensive, and your output is even more...lacking. This has been a major emphasis of my explorations in fixing the wizard. I've reached a point where I believe I've found a desirable/equitable balance, and am beginning to compile everything into as a concise a piece as I can manage. It's likely still a week or two out.

[morhilane]

 

As for spell damage, it's not mediocre on paper. It's just that it works like weapons: misses, graze, hit, crits and DT/DR reduce the final number. AoE are calculated per targets too. Basically, if the number is low, it's probably because it's a graze and/or the targets has high resistance against the damage type of that spell. I've seen a fireball deal 86 damage on a target in PoE beta, just like I've seen 5 damage on the target right beside the other one.

 

 

There are two main factors in why wizard damage is so mediocre.

1. Mr. Sawyer wishes it so.
2. Graze. On paper, a purely average wizard against an equivalent opponent has a 50% chance to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 5% chance to critical. Since the wizard has an innately low accuracy, this is actually closer to 55% to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 0% chance to critical against an "average" equivalent opponent. It gets worse when you're against something that is better than average as you might imagine.

Yikes. With a >50% chance to do half of your gimped damage very few times per day....and you get one mediocre bit of output. Factor in that a note-worthy fraction of your spells will not be offensive, and your output is even more...lacking. This has been a major emphasis of my explorations in fixing the wizard. I've reached a point where I believe I've found a desirable/equitable balance, and am beginning to compile everything into as a concise a piece as I can manage. It's likely still a week or two out.

 

 

Damaging spells gets a bonus to accuracy (depending on what they target, I've seen +10 and +15). When casting damaging spells the Wizard get his accuracy boosted to reach Rogue/Ranger/Fighter's level. They only sucks with weapons.

 

There seems to be a bunch of spells that were forgotten in a balance pass though. The Druid's Dancing Bolt or the Wizard's Chill Fog for example. But Jolting Touch and Souless Grasp can't be said to not deal enough damage.

[gkathellar]

There are two main factors in why wizard damage is so mediocre.

1. Mr. Sawyer wishes it so.

 

All he's actually articulated is that he doesn't want the traditional casters to be capable of doing everything better than everyone - which has, traditionally, been the case. And while I'm all for nostalgia, this is one of those traditions that is doing more good in the world as burning garbage.

 

2. Graze. On paper, a purely average wizard against an equivalent opponent has a 50% chance to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 5% chance to critical. Since the wizard has an innately low accuracy, this is actually closer to 55% to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 0% chance to critical against an "average" equivalent opponent. It gets worse when you're against something that is better than average as you might imagine.

 

This is not a change. Most damaging spells in the I.E. games have a save for half damage, and many non-damaging spells have a save for reduced effect.

 

Some people may perceive a difference, but it's not because of graze. Partly, it's because it's easy for saves for half damage to go unnoticed in the Infinity Engine. Partly, it's because enemies in the IE games tended to have something like half of their maximum HP, and so most mooks go down when you toss an AoE at them - play BG1 modded to give all enemies max health, and you'll see the difficulty jump a fair bit. And partly, it's because save odds in 2E are pretty abysmal at early levels, around 5-15% IIRC, and scale to about 50% in mid-levels and virtually 100% by 15 or so.

 

 

 

Yikes. With a >50% chance to do half of your gimped damage very few times per day....and you get one mediocre bit of output. Factor in that a note-worthy fraction of your spells will not be offensive, and your output is even more...lacking. This has been a major emphasis of my explorations in fixing the wizard. I've reached a point where I believe I've found a desirable/equitable balance, and am beginning to compile everything into as a concise a piece as I can manage. It's likely still a week or two out.

 

I look forward to your results, but bear in mind that the chance to do mediocre damage is not actually new, so if you're really looking to keep with nostalgia, it would be better to increase base damage.

 

(I also think there's a pretty fair argument for keeping spells on the same accuracy system that attacks use, but I don't feel up to supporting that view with a pseudo-essay right now, so I'll let it slide. One of the designers of D&D 4e did a good piece on that, but I'm not sure it's applicable, since 4e placed casters on the same "usage" track as attackers ... mmm. I'll think about how to present this, and maybe see if I can't find that article.)

Edited October 8, 2014 by gkathellar

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

 

As for spell damage, it's not mediocre on paper. It's just that it works like weapons: misses, graze, hit, crits and DT/DR reduce the final number. AoE are calculated per targets too. Basically, if the number is low, it's probably because it's a graze and/or the targets has high resistance against the damage type of that spell. I've seen a fireball deal 86 damage on a target in PoE beta, just like I've seen 5 damage on the target right beside the other one.

 

 

There are two main factors in why wizard damage is so mediocre.

1. Mr. Sawyer wishes it so.
2. Graze. On paper, a purely average wizard against an equivalent opponent has a 50% chance to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 5% chance to critical. Since the wizard has an innately low accuracy, this is actually closer to 55% to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 0% chance to critical against an "average" equivalent opponent. It gets worse when you're against something that is better than average as you might imagine.

Yikes. With a >50% chance to do half of your gimped damage very few times per day....and you get one mediocre bit of output. Factor in that a note-worthy fraction of your spells will not be offensive, and your output is even more...lacking. This has been a major emphasis of my explorations in fixing the wizard. I've reached a point where I believe I've found a desirable/equitable balance, and am beginning to compile everything into as a concise a piece as I can manage. It's likely still a week or two out.

 

 

 

Damaging spells gets a bonus to accuracy (depending on what they target, I've seen +10 and +15). When casting damaging spells the Wizard get his accuracy boosted to reach Rogue/Ranger/Fighter's level. They only sucks with weapons.

 

There seems to be a bunch of spells that were forgotten in a balance pass though. The Druid's Dancing Bolt or the Wizard's Chill Fog for example. But Jolting Touch and Souless Grasp can't be said to not deal enough damage.

 

 

Certainly true. Why this accuracy bonus is only applied to damaging spells is unknown, as debuffs are also reliant on accuracy.  What accuracy bonuses do exist are seemingly random and have no logical consistency. The same applies to damage and durations. Contrast:

Jolting Touch

Level 1

Foe only

+15 Accuracy Bonus

30-40 Damage

 

Crackling Bolt

Level 3

Friend and Foe

+10 Accuracy Bonus

39-65 Damage

 

A very similar spell that is 2 spell levels greater only does about 33% (average) more damage, is 5% more likely to graze, 5% less likely to critically hit, and has the risk and bother of friendly fire. The notion is that spells improve with level. The improvement of this spell is very debatable. Put into the context that Endurance/Hit Point values have doubled by the time a wizard has access to Crackling Bolt, that poor spell comes up even worse. Comparisons truly become painful when comparing these two spells to the level 2 spell Ray of Fire and the level 3 spell Fireball. The interesting thing about all of these horrible spells, is that Jolting Touch is the most appropriately powered/balanced to its level.

 

The greater spell system and spells are a total mess. If it were a balancing issue only, I'd be ecstatic; however, it's the near total absence of logical consistency and general ad hoc nature of each spell that unnerves me.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

There are two main factors in why wizard damage is so mediocre.

1. Mr. Sawyer wishes it so.

 

All he's actually articulated is that he doesn't want the traditional casters to be capable of doing everything better than everyone - which has, traditionally, been the case. And while I'm all for nostalgia, this is one of those traditions that is doing more good in the world as burning garbage.

 

2. Graze. On paper, a purely average wizard against an equivalent opponent has a 50% chance to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 5% chance to critical. Since the wizard has an innately low accuracy, this is actually closer to 55% to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 0% chance to critical against an "average" equivalent opponent. It gets worse when you're against something that is better than average as you might imagine.

 

This is not a change. Most damaging spells in the I.E. games have a save for half damage, and many non-damaging spells have a save for reduced effect.

 

Some people may perceive a difference, but it's not because of graze. Partly, it's because it's easy for saves for half damage to go unnoticed in the Infinity Engine. Partly, it's because enemies in the IE games tended to have something like half of their maximum HP, and so most mooks go down when you toss an AoE at them - play BG1 modded to give all enemies max health, and you'll see the difficulty jump a fair bit. And partly, it's because save odds in 2E are pretty abysmal at early levels, around 5-15% IIRC, and scale to about 50% in mid-levels and virtually 100% by 15 or so.

 

 

 

Yikes. With a >50% chance to do half of your gimped damage very few times per day....and you get one mediocre bit of output. Factor in that a note-worthy fraction of your spells will not be offensive, and your output is even more...lacking. This has been a major emphasis of my explorations in fixing the wizard. I've reached a point where I believe I've found a desirable/equitable balance, and am beginning to compile everything into as a concise a piece as I can manage. It's likely still a week or two out.

 

 

I look forward to your results, but bear in mind that the chance to do mediocre damage is not actually new, so if you're really looking to keep with nostalgia, it would be better to increase base damage.

 

(I also think there's a pretty fair argument for keeping spells on the same accuracy system that attacks use, but I don't feel up to supporting that view with a pseudo-essay right now, so I'll let it slide. One of the designers of D&D 4e did a good piece on that, but I'm not sure it's applicable, since 4e placed casters on the same "usage" track as attackers ... mmm. I'll think about how to present this, and maybe see if I can't find that article.)

 

 

You raise many good points that I have kept in mind. I've balanced damage ranges to be more in line with 3rd Edition D&D. This is reasonable, considering that PoE endurance values are even higher than 3 Ed. D&D, which had basically doubled from 2nd Edition. Balancing accuracy and durations are a more delicate matter with the potential for critical hits, but not horrendous. I believe the biggest problem is convincing Mr. Sawyer that the wizard should have the most potent offensive output, as their resource is both the most scarce with the greatest potential for failure. As for Wizards being an omniclass...that's not really a concern considering every class has roughly the same potential with the skill/attribute/proficiency system in PoE.

[Lephys]

I believe the biggest problem is convincing Mr. Sawyer that the wizard should have the most potent offensive output, as their resource is both the most scarce with the greatest potential for failure. As for Wizards being an omniclass...that's not really a concern considering every class has roughly the same potential with the skill/attribute/proficiency system in PoE.

I don't really think they should, though. Not by default, anyway. It's unnecessarily restrictive, and that's only ONE concept for magery. I don't much enjoy the notion that I've got to friggin' deploy my Mage and watch his little hooks dig into the ground way back behind everyone else, so that he can then fire big magical mortar rounds at all the enemies. And just say "Oh, but he's only got like 5, so, they should kill everything."

 

The system already allows for lots of flexibility in spell-casting frequency, and I'd honestly much rather have the spells scale better as they become more piddly (relative to your Wizard's current level), and be able to regularly fight with magic (just like everyone else gets to regularly fight with their class stuffs), than to just arbitrarily accept that the resource MUST be as scarce as it is, and that, to compensate for that, they simply MUST produce gigantic ouchies.

 

Honestly, I should be able to make a mage that fires off oodles of weak spells "constantly", OR one that fires off a few very powerful spells, a lot less frequently. Or any combination there-in. There's really no reason for that to not be an option.

 

*Note: When I say "oodles" and "constantly," I still mean "a bit less often than firing arrows from a bow, etc.". Basically, on-par with other classes' abilities.

 

Put simply, there's no reason "arcane magic" automatically equals "slow, scarce, but REALLY powerful!" There's nothing wrong with having slow, scarce, really powerful spells. But, why not take adavantage of the other possibilities as well?

 

Another thing with the scaling (and this could even factor into Talents and the like) is that, instead of spells JUST shifting from per-rest to per-encounter, etc., they could also acquire decreased cast times. I mean, if you're level 9, and you're casting some level 1 spells, chances are you've kind of mastered them at this point.

 

Then, that's a perfect example of all the great things you should be able to tweak about your class. Traits, talents, level-up options, what-have-you. Maybe you have an option that's "spells 2-levels-or-lower below your current level cast 30% faster." Or "spells below your current Wizard level cast more slowly, but deal 5% more damage per Wizard level."

 

That, and we should really have lots of grimoire options. Want 7 level-1 spell slots and only 3 level-5 spell slots? Should be doable. Want 7 level-5 spell slots and only 3 level-1 spell slots? Also doable. That sort of thing.

 

This same flexibility can be applied, conceptually, to any of the other classes, and their abilities, etc.

[morhilane]

 

 

 

 

As for spell damage, it's not mediocre on paper. It's just that it works like weapons: misses, graze, hit, crits and DT/DR reduce the final number. AoE are calculated per targets too. Basically, if the number is low, it's probably because it's a graze and/or the targets has high resistance against the damage type of that spell. I've seen a fireball deal 86 damage on a target in PoE beta, just like I've seen 5 damage on the target right beside the other one.

 

 

There are two main factors in why wizard damage is so mediocre.

1. Mr. Sawyer wishes it so.
2. Graze. On paper, a purely average wizard against an equivalent opponent has a 50% chance to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 5% chance to critical. Since the wizard has an innately low accuracy, this is actually closer to 55% to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 0% chance to critical against an "average" equivalent opponent. It gets worse when you're against something that is better than average as you might imagine.

Yikes. With a >50% chance to do half of your gimped damage very few times per day....and you get one mediocre bit of output. Factor in that a note-worthy fraction of your spells will not be offensive, and your output is even more...lacking. This has been a major emphasis of my explorations in fixing the wizard. I've reached a point where I believe I've found a desirable/equitable balance, and am beginning to compile everything into as a concise a piece as I can manage. It's likely still a week or two out.

 

 

 

Damaging spells gets a bonus to accuracy (depending on what they target, I've seen +10 and +15). When casting damaging spells the Wizard get his accuracy boosted to reach Rogue/Ranger/Fighter's level. They only sucks with weapons.

 

There seems to be a bunch of spells that were forgotten in a balance pass though. The Druid's Dancing Bolt or the Wizard's Chill Fog for example. But Jolting Touch and Souless Grasp can't be said to not deal enough damage.

 

 

Certainly true. Why this accuracy bonus is only applied to damaging spells is unknown, as debuffs are also reliant on accuracy.  What accuracy bonuses do exist are seemingly random and have no logical consistency. The same applies to damage and durations. Contrast:

Jolting Touch

Level 1

Foe only

+15 Accuracy Bonus

30-40 Damage

 

Crackling Bolt

Level 3

Friend and Foe

+10 Accuracy Bonus

39-65 Damage

 

A very similar spell that is 2 spell levels greater only does about 33% (average) more damage, is 5% more likely to graze, 5% less likely to critically hit, and has the risk and bother of friendly fire. The notion is that spells improve with level. The improvement of this spell is very debatable. Put into the context that Endurance/Hit Point values have doubled by the time a wizard has access to Crackling Bolt, that poor spell comes up even worse. Comparisons truly become painful when comparing these two spells to the level 2 spell Ray of Fire and the level 3 spell Fireball. The interesting thing about all of these horrible spells, is that Jolting Touch is the most appropriately powered/balanced to its level.

 

The greater spell system and spells are a total mess. If it were a balancing issue only, I'd be ecstatic; however, it's the near total absence of logical consistency and general ad hoc nature of each spell that unnerves me.

 

 

They don't target the same defense, that's why the bonus is different. Jolting Touch targets Deflection and Crackling Bolt targets Reflex. Also, Crackling Bolt will hits up to 5 targets, Jolting Touch will hits only 2 with slightly reduced damage on the second one (or will hit twice the same target if there are nothing else nearby, could be bug but I insta-killed a spider with it because of that). Both these spells have their damage revised in v301 too, it doesn't match the wiki.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for spell damage, it's not mediocre on paper. It's just that it works like weapons: misses, graze, hit, crits and DT/DR reduce the final number. AoE are calculated per targets too. Basically, if the number is low, it's probably because it's a graze and/or the targets has high resistance against the damage type of that spell. I've seen a fireball deal 86 damage on a target in PoE beta, just like I've seen 5 damage on the target right beside the other one.

 

 

There are two main factors in why wizard damage is so mediocre.

1. Mr. Sawyer wishes it so.
2. Graze. On paper, a purely average wizard against an equivalent opponent has a 50% chance to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 5% chance to critical. Since the wizard has an innately low accuracy, this is actually closer to 55% to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 0% chance to critical against an "average" equivalent opponent. It gets worse when you're against something that is better than average as you might imagine.

Yikes. With a >50% chance to do half of your gimped damage very few times per day....and you get one mediocre bit of output. Factor in that a note-worthy fraction of your spells will not be offensive, and your output is even more...lacking. This has been a major emphasis of my explorations in fixing the wizard. I've reached a point where I believe I've found a desirable/equitable balance, and am beginning to compile everything into as a concise a piece as I can manage. It's likely still a week or two out.

 

 

 

Damaging spells gets a bonus to accuracy (depending on what they target, I've seen +10 and +15). When casting damaging spells the Wizard get his accuracy boosted to reach Rogue/Ranger/Fighter's level. They only sucks with weapons.

 

There seems to be a bunch of spells that were forgotten in a balance pass though. The Druid's Dancing Bolt or the Wizard's Chill Fog for example. But Jolting Touch and Souless Grasp can't be said to not deal enough damage.

 

 

Certainly true. Why this accuracy bonus is only applied to damaging spells is unknown, as debuffs are also reliant on accuracy.  What accuracy bonuses do exist are seemingly random and have no logical consistency. The same applies to damage and durations. Contrast:

Jolting Touch

Level 1

Foe only

+15 Accuracy Bonus

30-40 Damage

 

Crackling Bolt

Level 3

Friend and Foe

+10 Accuracy Bonus

39-65 Damage

 

A very similar spell that is 2 spell levels greater only does about 33% (average) more damage, is 5% more likely to graze, 5% less likely to critically hit, and has the risk and bother of friendly fire. The notion is that spells improve with level. The improvement of this spell is very debatable. Put into the context that Endurance/Hit Point values have doubled by the time a wizard has access to Crackling Bolt, that poor spell comes up even worse. Comparisons truly become painful when comparing these two spells to the level 2 spell Ray of Fire and the level 3 spell Fireball. The interesting thing about all of these horrible spells, is that Jolting Touch is the most appropriately powered/balanced to its level.

 

The greater spell system and spells are a total mess. If it were a balancing issue only, I'd be ecstatic; however, it's the near total absence of logical consistency and general ad hoc nature of each spell that unnerves me.

 

 

 

They don't target the same defense, that's why the bonus is different. Jolting Touch targets Deflection and Crackling Bolt targets Reflex. Also, Crackling Bolt will hits up to 5 targets, Jolting Touch will hits only 2 with slightly reduced damage on the second one (or will hit twice the same target if there are nothing else nearby, could be bug but I insta-killed a spider with it because of that). Both these spells have their damage revised in v301 too, it doesn't match the wiki.

 

 

That these spells target different defensive stats isn't important. All defenses increase uniformly and linearly for all character classes each level. Some will start with higher Reflexes, whilst others will start with higher Deflection.

 

Yes, in v301 Crackling Bolt actually does 30-50 base damage, and Jolting Touch does 55-75 base damage to the initial target and 41-56 to two secondary targets. Jolting touch does an average of 65 damage to one, then 48.5 damage to two foes with at +15% chance to hit and critical with no harm of friendly damage. Contrast Crackling Bolt which is 2 levels higher, but does an average of 40 damage to 5 targets, with 5% less accuracy bonus, while incurring friendly fire damage. It's a very dubious claim to assert Crackling bolt is the better spell--especially for one two entire tiers higher.

 

What is important, is that Jolting Touch vs. Crackling Bolt is more broadly representative of how many spells lack intuitive or logical progression. Consider the average damages of Fan of Flames, Rolling Flame, and Fireball. Each are respectively level 1, 2, and 3 spells. Each does a respective average damage of 52.5 (FoF), 25 (RF), and 42.5 (FB). The 1st level spell, Fan of Flames not only does more damage, but has twice the AoE as Fireball (Base 5m vs Base 2.5m)! Examples of this abound for just about every spell parameter.

 

It's the major inconsistency that's the problem. There is no predictable behavior nor established power level with increases in spell level. This is important, because the Wizard, Druid, and Priest classes are more or less the sum of their spells.

[morhilane]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for spell damage, it's not mediocre on paper. It's just that it works like weapons: misses, graze, hit, crits and DT/DR reduce the final number. AoE are calculated per targets too. Basically, if the number is low, it's probably because it's a graze and/or the targets has high resistance against the damage type of that spell. I've seen a fireball deal 86 damage on a target in PoE beta, just like I've seen 5 damage on the target right beside the other one.

 

 

There are two main factors in why wizard damage is so mediocre.

1. Mr. Sawyer wishes it so.
2. Graze. On paper, a purely average wizard against an equivalent opponent has a 50% chance to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 5% chance to critical. Since the wizard has an innately low accuracy, this is actually closer to 55% to graze, 45% chance to hit "normally", and 0% chance to critical against an "average" equivalent opponent. It gets worse when you're against something that is better than average as you might imagine.

Yikes. With a >50% chance to do half of your gimped damage very few times per day....and you get one mediocre bit of output. Factor in that a note-worthy fraction of your spells will not be offensive, and your output is even more...lacking. This has been a major emphasis of my explorations in fixing the wizard. I've reached a point where I believe I've found a desirable/equitable balance, and am beginning to compile everything into as a concise a piece as I can manage. It's likely still a week or two out.

 

 

 

Damaging spells gets a bonus to accuracy (depending on what they target, I've seen +10 and +15). When casting damaging spells the Wizard get his accuracy boosted to reach Rogue/Ranger/Fighter's level. They only sucks with weapons.

 

There seems to be a bunch of spells that were forgotten in a balance pass though. The Druid's Dancing Bolt or the Wizard's Chill Fog for example. But Jolting Touch and Souless Grasp can't be said to not deal enough damage.

 

 

Certainly true. Why this accuracy bonus is only applied to damaging spells is unknown, as debuffs are also reliant on accuracy.  What accuracy bonuses do exist are seemingly random and have no logical consistency. The same applies to damage and durations. Contrast:

Jolting Touch

Level 1

Foe only

+15 Accuracy Bonus

30-40 Damage

 

Crackling Bolt

Level 3

Friend and Foe

+10 Accuracy Bonus

39-65 Damage

 

A very similar spell that is 2 spell levels greater only does about 33% (average) more damage, is 5% more likely to graze, 5% less likely to critically hit, and has the risk and bother of friendly fire. The notion is that spells improve with level. The improvement of this spell is very debatable. Put into the context that Endurance/Hit Point values have doubled by the time a wizard has access to Crackling Bolt, that poor spell comes up even worse. Comparisons truly become painful when comparing these two spells to the level 2 spell Ray of Fire and the level 3 spell Fireball. The interesting thing about all of these horrible spells, is that Jolting Touch is the most appropriately powered/balanced to its level.

 

The greater spell system and spells are a total mess. If it were a balancing issue only, I'd be ecstatic; however, it's the near total absence of logical consistency and general ad hoc nature of each spell that unnerves me.

 

 

 

They don't target the same defense, that's why the bonus is different. Jolting Touch targets Deflection and Crackling Bolt targets Reflex. Also, Crackling Bolt will hits up to 5 targets, Jolting Touch will hits only 2 with slightly reduced damage on the second one (or will hit twice the same target if there are nothing else nearby, could be bug but I insta-killed a spider with it because of that). Both these spells have their damage revised in v301 too, it doesn't match the wiki.

 

 

That these spells target different defensive stats isn't important. All defenses increase uniformly and linearly for all character classes each level. Some will start with higher Reflexes, whilst others will start with higher Deflection.

 

Yes, in v301 Crackling Bolt actually does 30-50 base damage, and Jolting Touch does 55-75 base damage to the initial target and 41-56 to two secondary targets. Jolting touch does an average of 65 damage to one, then 48.5 damage to two foes with at +15% chance to hit and critical with no harm of friendly damage. Contrast Crackling Bolt which is 2 levels higher, but does an average of 40 damage to 5 targets, with 5% less accuracy bonus, while incurring friendly fire damage. It's a very dubious claim to assert Crackling bolt is the better spell--especially for one two entire tiers higher.

 

What is important, is that Jolting Touch vs. Crackling Bolt is more broadly representative of how many spells lack intuitive or logical progression. Consider the average damages of Fan of Flames, Rolling Flame, and Fireball. Each are respectively level 1, 2, and 3 spells. Each does a respective average damage of 52.5 (FoF), 25 (RF), and 42.5 (FB). The 1st level spell, Fan of Flames not only does more damage, but has twice the AoE as Fireball (Base 5m vs Base 2.5m)! Examples of this abound for just about every spell parameter.

 

It's the major inconsistency that's the problem. There is no predictable behavior nor established power level with increases in spell level. This is important, because the Wizard, Druid, and Priest classes are more or less the sum of their spells.

 

Jolting Touch target friendly right now in the game. I killed BB Priest with the rebound once. The wording is also the similar to Crackling Bolt, neither talk about hitting allies (this is confusing because both do). Not really arguing with your, just correcting facts.  Also, my different defense is that +15 is always used for spells that target Deflection and +10 is used for spells that target the "saves" stats. That part is consistent. Although, I personally think it is just a balance problem, not a conceptual one.

 

Oh and Rolling Flame sucks, I never hit enemies with it (always show miss in the log).

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Thank you for the correction.

 

*Edit

 

I don't see any accuracy bonus for spells which do not inflict damage though, like Arduous Delay of Motion, etc. Also, it looks like they chanced the wiki page and are no longer listing the spells. I can't help but feel responsible. lol

Edited October 8, 2014 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Hatred]

The BG2 Mage battles were one of the best things about the gameplay, however it could be done in a more elegant fashion such as "high resistance", rather than complete immunity

I enjoyed the BG2 Mage battles just as they were. Can you please elaborate on the "high resistance" aspect of your comment? 

I dont mind that PoE will not have these kind of battles by the way. My hope is that if PoE is successful it will be kinda like the original BG(it will spawn sequels,expansions and side series). Sequels and expansions is where I would expect to find a new kind of mage focus'd game. 

[Sensuki]

With Crackling Bolt, not only does it to crappy damage but the cast range is really really short compared to Lightning Bolt in the IE games, it's a pathetic spell atm.

[HoonDing]

"BG2 mage battles"

 

Keldorn -> true sight -> dispel magic -> Carsomyr *chunk*

[gkathellar]

That's what Non-detection and Spell Immunity: Abjuration are for.

[Teslacrashed]

Let's not forget they were licensing a magic system that had been established for quite some time, and had to follow it's format.

Plenty of information displayed in BG can easily be considered not necessary in all cases for a computer game and it's UI, or for the game world itself.