Intelligence doesn't affect range of spells?

[thelee]

Has this been pointed out yet or am I missing something?

 

What's the point of expanding the AoE of spells if the range never increases? I have terrible luck getting CHARNAME to use that level 1 daze spell and that level 2 confuse spell, since their ranges are so low and the AoE grows so wide. Half the time (maybe more?) my CHARNAME will just run so close to the enemy that they hit themself with the spell(s).

 

Or is the range actually increasing and the range for these spells is just that terrible?

[Silent Winter]

AFAIK INT doesn't affect range of spells - range is fixed for each spell and relates to the centre-point - so yeah, huge AOE can be a disadvantage there.

They should tie range to edge of circle (centre+radius) or take the max AOE into account when deciding range.

Or make the AOE smaller the further it gets, so you could have huge party-hitting AOE or smaller distance hitting.  That'd bring some tactics into it - hit less enemies farther away or  hit more enemies but need to get closer / risk your party more.

[Fearabbit]

I was wondering about this - is a large AoE actually always a good thing, or do you sometimes want to have a small AoE so that you don't hit your own party?

 

Also what's the deal with range? Until now I wasn't aware that spells have different ranges, can you elaborate on that? I kind of assumed it was either melee or ranged, with "ranged" functioning the same way as arrows for example.

[DCParry]

I think there is also some issue with targeting (in terms of destination/start) of some spells. I am having the worst time getting the Wizard ball of fire to act in a consistent targeting fashion (unless the intent of the spell is to continually set BB Fighter a'flame, then mission accomplished!). 

 

From observation it seems that some spells have different ranges (as evidenced by BB Wizard's need to run ahead and get squashed). 

[morhilane]

 

From observation it seems that some spells have different ranges (as evidenced by BB Wizard's need to run ahead and get squashed). 

 

I think some of that is bugged. I had my BB Wizard run around the melee once, he ended up pretty much where he started to cast his spell in the end. It was somewhat funny though.

[DCParry]

 

 

From observation it seems that some spells have different ranges (as evidenced by BB Wizard's need to run ahead and get squashed). 

 

I think some of that is bugged. I had my BB Wizard run around the melee once, he ended up pretty much where he started to cast his spell in the end. It was somewhat funny though.

 

 

He was just showing off his nudity to the rest of the party to inspire them in the upcoming conflict!

 

I kid, I kid.

[CatatonicMan]

I brought this up previously. No idea what, if anything, is being done about it.

Edited September 10, 2014 by CatatonicMan

[Pray]

Perception should effect range; no longer a dump stat - 

 

1 Perception = .5 or .75% range, even for melee.

[Sensuki]

Range doesn't need to be tied to attributes, but some spells such as Crackling Bolt need a much longer cast range, because it's a useless spell having to run into melee range to cast a Lightning Bolt.

[Guest 4ward]

i hope spells with a short target range have reasonably short casting times and since we can run in PoE i hope that if there are AoE spells with friendly fire that have a shorter target range than AoE radius i can get away in time before the spell goes off. But I’d definitely prefer that the target range be longer than the radius.

Just a question: Is the damage of spells reduced the more you are away from the AoE center? Are there so far also 'trap' spells that are triggered by movement as well (something like spell 'skulltrap' in BG2) ?

[remiel005]

I do think they need to work on aoe size.  If you include in the range/fog of war/zoom/non targetable areas than targeting an aoe can be painful and less effective.

 

An example of this:

I was attempting to cast a druid spell(I believe the swarm spell) on the group of bandits attempting to get the egg.  This druid has a maxed out intelligence so the aoe was massive.  The cliff wall was not target able as a location to cast the spell so I had to constantly shift the aoe around to hit the most enemies without hitting my party.  I had to settle for an aoe that only hit the caster and two-handed sword bandit.  In the end if the druid had an intelligence of 5 I probably could have landed the aoe at the base of the cliff and hit all the enemies while sparing my people.

 

An increase in duration should always be advantageous in standard battle, but an increased aoe size is highly situational.  I don't know how viable it is, but I really think for it to be good  to be able to toggle the aoe size from the spell base up to what your characters intelligence allows.  Range CAN be a factor in this, but other things influence targeting aoes.

[Guest 4ward]

I do think they need to work on aoe size.  If you include in the range/fog of war/zoom/non targetable areas than targeting an aoe can be painful and less effective.

 

An example of this:

I was attempting to cast a druid spell(I believe the swarm spell) on the group of bandits attempting to get the egg.  This druid has a maxed out intelligence so the aoe was massive.  The cliff wall was not target able as a location to cast the spell so I had to constantly shift the aoe around to hit the most enemies without hitting my party.  I had to settle for an aoe that only hit the caster and two-handed sword bandit.  In the end if the druid had an intelligence of 5 I probably could have landed the aoe at the base of the cliff and hit all the enemies while sparing my people.

 

An increase in duration should always be advantageous in standard battle, but an increased aoe size is highly situational.  I don't know how viable it is, but I really think for it to be good  to be able to toggle the aoe size from the spell base up to what your characters intelligence allows.  Range CAN be a factor in this, but other things influence targeting aoes.

I agree with your last paragraph though i'd prefer if attributes would have no effect on aoe radius, target range and perhaps even not on damage dealt, but rather how many highlevel spells the spellcaster has access to. Afaik the sorcerer in BG2 was independent on attributes.

[thelee]

Range doesn't need to be tied to attributes, but some spells such as Crackling Bolt need a much longer cast range, because it's a useless spell having to run into melee range to cast a Lightning Bolt.

 

It would seem that it'd be preferable to tie Intelligence to duration and *range* as opposed to duration and *area of effect*. More range is, by definition, strictly better. Whereas area of effect is definitely highly situational, especially with non-targetable areas and the currently constrained range on some spells (cough the daze spell).

 

As suggested in catatonicman's thread, maybe range should be calculated to the perimiter of the AoE, instead of the center. Though this would run counter to infinity engine-based expectations for AoE spells.

[Cantousent]

The problem with my wizards, and the first run the PC was a wizard so I was using two, is that if they could cast the spell from where they were standing, no problem.  If they had to move at all, they ran up way farther than necessary.  They don't just run to within range to cast the spell, but actually up into the battle to start casting, whereupon the bad guys notice them and kill them.  This sort of stuff happened in the BG games also, but it seems much worse in PoE.  ...And it forces me to keep moving people in small increments to position.  I don't mind having to take time to worry about positioning because without it the tactical feel of the game goes out the window.  I just wish my wizards would path forward just enough to cast the spell.

[wanderon]

I was wondering about this - is a large AoE actually always a good thing, or do you sometimes want to have a small AoE so that you don't hit your own party?

 

Also what's the deal with range? Until now I wasn't aware that spells have different ranges, can you elaborate on that? I kind of assumed it was either melee or ranged, with "ranged" functioning the same way as arrows for example.

 

Ranges are listed in the description and vary mostly between 10m & 20m on the ones I have been looking at - at 20m you can cast from outside enemy sight - 10m not so much. My biggest gripe is there's very few single target spells so far and very few that are party friendly either so other than an opening salvo most aoe spells are not very helpful tactically.

[Guest 4ward]

i don't play the beta so i wouldn't know but i'm curious if there's a line drawn between your target and your spellcaster displaying the range of the spell. Is that already in the game? I think it would be helpful for me if such a line would be displayed. So i choose a spell, click either on floor or enemy as the target and a red line is drawn between my spellcaster and the target. If my spellcaster closes in and nears the target the line would eventually turn green showing that my caster reached the necessary range from where he can start casting the spell. If i choose another spell or target a new line would be drawn showing the new range. Something like that...

[Gfted1]

Cool idea but no, its not in the game. The only thing you can observe when casting is the AoE radius. Same with range weapons, no line or ability to determine your distance from the target. When you cast or shoot, your toon will run into range before acting, if you are outside the weapon / spell range.

[Cantousent]

Cool idea but no, its not in the game. The only thing you can observe when casting is the AoE radius. Same with range weapons, no line or ability to determine your distance from the target. When you cast or shoot, your toon will run into range before acting, if you are outside the weapon / spell range.

Yeah, but he doesn't just run into range.  He runs way the hell up to cast.  I've observed this many many times where, if I cast out of range, the character runs up much more than is necessary.  I've sometimes caught the character running up, selected him, had him move *back* a little and cast successfully.  I mean, if they path him to run up a certain distance, why can't they path him to move up just to the range of the spell?  ...Or, if that causes issues, then 90% of the range?  They're already pathing him forward.

[Matt516]

Reposting what I said earlier about this, which is basiaclly: you should be able to scale your AoE semicontinuously from min to max by using the mouse wheel when you target. Problem solved.

[Sensuki]

That was actually something they wanted to have, I've seen Josh mention that idea before.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Sensuki

[prodigydancer]

The only thing you can observe when casting is the AoE radius.

OK, but what can you say about increased radius being undesirable due to friendly fire? Logically speaking, higher stats should always be beneficial and not detrimental. INT in its current for is a mixed blessing at best.

 

Possible solution: allow us to select the desired radius for each cast (within limits depending on INT score).

Edited September 11, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Gfted1]

 

The only thing you can observe when casting is the AoE radius.

OK, but what can you say about increased radius being undesirable due to friendly fire? Logically speaking, higher stats should always be beneficial and not detrimental. INT in its current for is a mixed blessing at best.

 

Possible solution: allow us to select the desired radius for each cast (within limits depending on INT score).

 

 

Agreed. I had a hell of a time targeting things with my giant 18 INT radius, without also targeting my party. A few people have mentioned being able to control the radius with the mouse wheel, which I think is a great idea also.

[thelee]

being able to mouse-wheel through the area of effect still dodges the problem of when you have spells that have skimpy range. even if you could mouse-wheel, you're basically losing out on benefiting from INT because no one would voluntarily mouse-wheel the spell's area of effect to include the caster him/herself.

[CatatonicMan]

being able to mouse-wheel through the area of effect still dodges the problem of when you have spells that have skimpy range. even if you could mouse-wheel, you're basically losing out on benefiting from INT because no one would voluntarily mouse-wheel the spell's area of effect to include the caster him/herself.

 

To play devil's advocate, there are actually good reasons why a caster might voluntarily nuke him/herself. The caster might have superior resistance to that element or effect, for example, or the cost to the caster might be worth the damage put on the enemies.

[thelee]

 

being able to mouse-wheel through the area of effect still dodges the problem of when you have spells that have skimpy range. even if you could mouse-wheel, you're basically losing out on benefiting from INT because no one would voluntarily mouse-wheel the spell's area of effect to include the caster him/herself.

 

To play devil's advocate, there are actually good reasons why a caster might voluntarily nuke him/herself. The caster might have superior resistance to that element or effect, for example, or the cost to the caster might be worth the damage put on the enemies.

 

 

I know you're playing devil's advocate here, but the main point is that for all other stats, each additional point is strictly better. For intelligence, in at least one facet at least, it is not necessarily strictly better. (Note: "might have" or specific workarounds are conditional, not "strictly better".)