Saving the Wizard Class

[anameforobsidian]

I love em too, and I'm replaying them right now.  But, replaying them makes so many glaring issues apparent: 

Scared enemies running away virtually can't be targeted by melee,

rock paper scissors mage combat that goes on for seconds or years,

a nasty habit of killer saves that require reloading (imprison is an especially nasty example),

a clumsy spellbook system,

wizards and clerics that can do everything by themselves which renders large sections of the huge class variety ultimately pointless,

a proficiency system that favors fighters a bit too highly (at the very least I would have allowed paladins and rangers three points),

a frequent willingness to include game-breaking spells (web probably being one of the worst offenders),

plot invincible enemies you run into at night,

a narrative structure that gets a bit strained in bg2,

an inability for melee characters to stop other melee characters without apm cheese,

vastly superior and inferior strongholds,

etc.

Recognizing the flaws of a game are not the same thing as hating them, and too much nostalgia can dangerously color preconceptions.

 

 

Furthermore, I think the idea that wizards should have a huge power differential is fantastically bad.  It either leads to making wizards a boring faceroll, or rendering a bunch of content useless by making it subpar, either one strongly limits player choice and enjoyment. 

 

And roll or die saves are a terrible idea.  They turn combat into a slot-machine or super-boring.  There's nothing inherently more interesting about casting protection from petrification in the cellars of candlekeep and then bashing the basilik's faces in.  It's arguably less interesting then the hordes of ghouls in the crypt before, because their diseases, while curable still made you think far more about melee engagement.

[Lephys]

Ultimately, for the implementation to be really good, wizards need to be cheap.

 

-snip-

 

They need to be a cheap, unfair class.

...

 

Wizards are about infrequent awesomeness. Basically, they should cast crap once in a while and when they do, it should be game changing.

I disagree with every fiber of my being. There's nothing wrong with your liking that kind of Wizard design, but there's nothing inherent to the idea of magic that dictates that it MUST be ultimately/supremely powerful, but also really slow/infrequent/limited as a balance. That D&D Wizards are like that is solely because that's the kind of Wizards the D&D creators liked. It's not because you can't have magical people who are much closer to on-par with other folks. Especially in a fantasy setting in which all the adventuring classes are a bit of prowess exaggerations anyway.

 

Personally, I'm quite sick of the extreme lack of games with mages who aren't stupidly limited yet supremely powerful. I'd just like to go out there and kick stuff in the teeth just like any old Warrior, but via magical means instead of purely physical means. Very few RPGs let you do much as a mage other than be relaly, really careful, stand far away, and make all your spells count.

 

It's one reason I love Guild Wars 2 so much. Being an Elementalist in that game is fun as crap to fight stuff. 'Course, I just wish there were a greater variety of "spells" (abilities) at your disposal at any given time. As, being an MMO, you're using the same set of stuff for nigh infinite hours of gameplay (however long you want to keep playing the game).

 

Annnnywho.

 

I don't think Mr. Magniloquent's changes are strictly necessary, but I also very much like the overall concepts and suggestions he's presented.

[Stun]

I love em too, and I'm replaying them right now. But, replaying them makes so many glaring issues apparent:

Scared enemies running away virtually can't be targeted by melee,

rock paper scissors mage combat that goes on for seconds or years,

a nasty habit of killer saves that require reloading (imprison is an especially nasty example),

a clumsy spellbook system,

wizards and clerics that can do everything by themselves which renders large sections of the huge class variety ultimately pointless,

a proficiency system that favors fighters a bit too highly (at the very least I would have allowed paladins and rangers three points),

a frequent willingness to include game-breaking spells (web probably being one of the worst offenders),

plot invincible enemies you run into at night,

a narrative structure that gets a bit strained in bg2,

an inability for melee characters to stop other melee characters without apm cheese,

vastly superior and inferior strongholds,

etc.

Recognizing the flaws of a game are not the same thing as hating them, and too much nostalgia can dangerously color preconceptions.

 

 

Furthermore, I think the idea that wizards should have a huge power differential is fantastically bad. It either leads to making wizards a boring faceroll, or rendering a bunch of content useless by making it subpar, either one strongly limits player choice and enjoyment.

 

And roll or die saves are a terrible idea. They turn combat into a slot-machine or super-boring. There's nothing inherently more interesting about casting protection from petrification in the cellars of candlekeep and then bashing the basilik's faces in. It's arguably less interesting then the hordes of ghouls in the crypt before, because their diseases, while curable still made you think far more about melee engagement.

No sale. Magic in the BG games was not "flawed". And there's no such thing as one class rendering another "pointless" in a single player ROLE PLAYING game.

 

Also, fleeing enemies don't need to be melee'd, when you can employ a little bit of intelligence and destroy them with magic, or any ranged attack.

 

Other points:

 

-Imprisonment is not an example of "killer save requirements", because there IS no saving throw for Imprisonment.

-There's no such thing as a "game breaking spell" in a game that has hard counters (anyone with Free Action is immune to web, for example)

-Not sure what "apm cheese" means, but again, there's no such thing as impossible in BG2's system. There's a counter for EVERYTHING. That is why the system is void of flaws, save for the worthless opinionated variety that gets frequently spouted by the fools and haters. (I didn't like the spell book system! Save-or-Die is crap! Bards suck! etc.)

 

 

 

And finally this: The IE games were single player party based RPGs. And PoE will be the same. This *alone* makes discussion of class balance worthless. WHO CARES if class A is more powerful/useful than class B? What difference does it make? Even if you're a strict powergamer who will only play the most powerful class, you'll STILL be using a party of different classes. And if you're just a role player, power differences won't matter at all since it won't be about power, it'll be about roleplaying your class.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

So magic in the IE games was flawless, Stun? There wasn't a SINGLE improvement you'd make to it?

[Kjaamor]

Go-go-gadget Caps Lock.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Played as a mage through all IE games many times. It's my favorite class by far... Tried it in PoE. It's no good.

 

And not because of the magic system, but because of an extremely generic spell selection....I've been told that Sawyer hates mages and intentionally wanted to nerf them hard. Well, nice job, not only did you nerf them, but you made them boring.....I don't understand if this is intentional (somebody really hating that class) or mages were just given to a guy who doesn't understand/doesn't want to understand the beauty of this class, but the job is done. Congratulations whoever did it.

 

Yes, this was deliberate. Mr. Sawyer feels that the wizard class within D&D is an omniclass that cannot be suffered or endured. Its very presence breaks the fabric of any game system. As such, he obliterated the class and scattered its ashes across all of the others. See Quetzalcoatl's quote:

Part of the problem probably comes from the fact that the spells have to be divided among 5 completely unique magic classes (wizard, druid, priest, cipher and chanter) and even the other classes have semi-magic abilities. The IE games not only had less magic classes (wizards, clerics and druids), but they also shared a lot of spells. By contrast, none of the classes in this game share any spells or abilities.

 

 

Dear backers, it is very likely that many mods will exist to fix PoE, the Wizard fix being one of them.

 

 

And Im up for it, I don t like a Campaign World where wizards and arcane magic is so inferior.

 

While I agree with you, and will be modding this travesty out, I feel it would be prudent to try and do what can be done now to minimize that effort.

 

I most certainly agree with what many have said here in that the wizard's spell selection is merely dismal. This is not likely to change before modding. Even on the video where Mr. Sawyer talked about "some cool spells", he talked about the god-awful switch-positions spells, and a few spells were the wizard conjures a magical weapon. That should give you an indication.

 

I feel like I shouldn't have put the bullet points in my original post. Massive amounts of those files were dedicated to re-balancing damage, durations, cast times, and even spell per day to provide for everything people have mentioned here. I took considerable effort to balance the wizard's damage per day output to where each spell would be meaningful without being "unbalanced" or game-breaking. Durations were adjusted in a thorough manner as well. Casting speeds were staggered on a linear scale to the spell level, and the effective spells per day was even shown under all of these new balanced parameters. Did no one look at those values? Even the concerns of being able to cast all day vs producing few but very powerful spells was addressed. That was one of the reasons to adopt soul/spell points.

 

Again, did anyone actually look at the values for damage, duration, casting times, and effective spells per day? I really think that you guys will find them worth-while.

[Stun]

So magic in the IE games was flawless, Stun? There wasn't a SINGLE improvement you'd make to it?

I can't think of one. Not an improvement, at least. I can come up with some changes though... but they'd be just that: changes. They wouldn't make the system better. And they certainly wouldn't be 'fixes to a flawed system'.

 

 

For example, (talking about just BG2) I'd make Abi-Dahlzim's Horrid Wilting incur friendly fire. I'd give Skull Trap a larger AOE. I'd make Black Blade of Disaster 8th level. I'd make Minor Sequencer able to store 3 spells instead of just 2. Stuff like that.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Stun

[Shevek]

I tell you one thing I hated about IE magic: stripping layers of mage protections. That was a real chore. I am glad thats gone.

[Skipperro]

I've played a lot with spell-casting characters in IE games and I've loved it, but there was something that have always annoyed me - spells per day. It was just unnatural, that high-level mage have forgotten magic missile spell after casting it 4 times, but can still use fireball. That's why my favourite mod was Spell Refresh - it restores spells after a few minutes. I was really glad to hear when Josh said, that there will be some "per encounter" or even "free to spam" spells after reaching certain level.

 

Please, implement this feature as a feat and I'll be happy

[Sarex]

So magic in the IE games was flawless, Stun? There wasn't a SINGLE improvement you'd make to it?

 

There is a difference between a single improvement and gutting the whole class.

[archangel979]

I tell you one thing I hated about IE magic: stripping layers of mage protections. That was a real chore. I am glad thats gone.

Actually that was part of the tactics. Saying this means you want to play simple arpg games. 

In BG you had a choice if you wanted to engage enemy mage with everything you got including stripping his protections or if wanted to use that spellcasting to kill or debuff someone else. Enemy mages were rarely alone and often didn't **** up your party unless you ignored them for too long. Short term you could get rid of others first so you can use your whole party of the enemy mage.

[Seari]

I tell you one thing I hated about IE magic: stripping layers of mage protections. That was a real chore. I am glad thats gone.

I love em too, and I'm replaying them right now.  But, replaying them makes so many glaring issues apparent: 

Scared enemies running away virtually can't be targeted by melee,

rock paper scissors mage combat that goes on for seconds or years,

a nasty habit of killer saves that require reloading (imprison is an especially nasty example),

a clumsy spellbook system,

wizards and clerics that can do everything by themselves which renders large sections of the huge class variety ultimately pointless,

a proficiency system that favors fighters a bit too highly (at the very least I would have allowed paladins and rangers three points),

a frequent willingness to include game-breaking spells (web probably being one of the worst offenders),

plot invincible enemies you run into at night,

a narrative structure that gets a bit strained in bg2,

an inability for melee characters to stop other melee characters without apm cheese,

vastly superior and inferior strongholds,

etc.

Recognizing the flaws of a game are not the same thing as hating them, and too much nostalgia can dangerously color preconceptions.

 

 

Furthermore, I think the idea that wizards should have a huge power differential is fantastically bad.  It either leads to making wizards a boring faceroll, or rendering a bunch of content useless by making it subpar, either one strongly limits player choice and enjoyment. 

 

And roll or die saves are a terrible idea.  They turn combat into a slot-machine or super-boring.  There's nothing inherently more interesting about casting protection from petrification in the cellars of candlekeep and then bashing the basilik's faces in.  It's arguably less interesting then the hordes of ghouls in the crypt before, because their diseases, while curable still made you think far more about melee engagement.

 

git gud

 

[Bester]

Yeah, lol. When I first saw how kickstarter brought together thousands of people with an IE nostalgia, this is so not how I imagined it would be. Now when I read the forums, some posts are so surreal I sometimes consider pinching myself.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Bester

[rheingold]

Guys, I really don't understand this... issues are never black and white. Class balance IS important. Is it the most important issue, of course not. Is there a point where it should be over riden in order to fix a broken class. Yes. Nothing should be sacred.

BTW As much as I loved BG2, D&D 3.5 etc (and still do,) they were ridiculously flawed and illogical. If a system can be created that fixes some of the more glaring flaws then I'm ok with that.

 

For all of the wizards were gods people - maybe they have forgotten about the 1st level punching bag with 2hp, a dagger they couldn't hit a barn with and one magic missile spell. The only time wizards where ever powerfull was when the resting system was abused.

Yeah, sure you had time stop, horrid wilting - for one fight a day! I might also add that the people complaininmg about the wizard class being to weak in POE seem to want an all powerful god like figure - as if they roled a high level mage in BG2, and didn't need to rest - the character could cast an unlimeted amount spells.

 

Regarding the actuall balance issue - it is important even for a role player like me... while my character does not have to be the most awesmely powerful hero, I don't believe anyone really wants to play a gimped character.

Hopefully Obsidan will get it right - and to be honest from what I've seen they seem to be doing ok. There is plenty of difference between the classes which is probably the most important issue.

[archangel979]

I love em too, and I'm replaying them right now.  But, replaying them makes so many glaring issues apparent: 

Scared enemies running away virtually can't be targeted by melee,

rock paper scissors mage combat that goes on for seconds or years,

a nasty habit of killer saves that require reloading (imprison is an especially nasty example),

a clumsy spellbook system,

wizards and clerics that can do everything by themselves which renders large sections of the huge class variety ultimately pointless,

a proficiency system that favors fighters a bit too highly (at the very least I would have allowed paladins and rangers three points),

a frequent willingness to include game-breaking spells (web probably being one of the worst offenders),

plot invincible enemies you run into at night,

a narrative structure that gets a bit strained in bg2,

an inability for melee characters to stop other melee characters without apm cheese,

vastly superior and inferior strongholds,

etc.

Recognizing the flaws of a game are not the same thing as hating them, and too much nostalgia can dangerously color preconceptions.

 

 

Furthermore, I think the idea that wizards should have a huge power differential is fantastically bad.  It either leads to making wizards a boring faceroll, or rendering a bunch of content useless by making it subpar, either one strongly limits player choice and enjoyment. 

 

And roll or die saves are a terrible idea.  They turn combat into a slot-machine or super-boring.  There's nothing inherently more interesting about casting protection from petrification in the cellars of candlekeep and then bashing the basilik's faces in.  It's arguably less interesting then the hordes of ghouls in the crypt before, because their diseases, while curable still made you think far more about melee engagement.

Someone running like crazy for their life not being able to be hit easily with melee? Oh my God!!! How is that possible?! That is completely unreal! LOL.

 

Rock, paper, scissors? That is much more fun that throwing a rock at each other and waiting until one falls down first!

 

Spells that make you load the game? I am sure you never loaded a game when someone got stabbed to death! And Imprison is easily reversed with Freedom spell. What, you don't have it? Why are are you attacking someone with Imprison then?

 

I agree that spellbook UI can always be done better but without changing its strategic nature. Oh, you didn't mean that? Well there are plenty of simpler games with mages that don't need to use strategy and planning, why are you on IE spiritual successor forums?

 

Wizards and Clerics have good spells if you prepared them in advance. Once you use them, they rely on Fighters to take care of business. it is faster to clear stuff with fighters and let casters only buff and debuff. In IWDEE that I am playing my Paladin and Archer do most damage, not my cleric or sorcerer (Archer is beast mode with 5 attacks and 10+ damage per attack with nonmagical arrows without any buffs and he always hits except on roll of 1).

 

Proficiency system does not favor Fighters, other classes get different bonuses. Fighters get to be best at one weapon. By claiming this you show you don't understand it.

 

Game breaking spells? Lol. I rarely find Web to be useful in my IWDEE play. It is about creating good encounters. BG1 was not known for its difficulty, and in BG2 enemy saves were good enough for web to only be useful sometimes. Yes there were good combinations like sending a poison immune tank in front and using Cloudkill to kill everyone that surrounded him but that was not average play. Finding such combinations is called Game Mastery and it makes the game better when allowed in SP games as it lets players feel like they learned something and became better at the game.

 

Plot invincible enemies? Wow, that is not possible! No game every had this! How can IE games dare to have such when no game in history has ever had plot invincible enemies!!

 

Plot structure is what it is. I has nothing to do with engine and type of game and everything to do with people writing it. Obsidian is not Bioware (BG2) so this point means nothing.

 

Melee characters stoped other melee by understanding how AI works. I rarely had the need to stop enemy melee from attacking my backline.

 

Inferior or superior strongholds means nothing, those are added content and nothing to do with basics of IE games. And nothing stopped you from playing with another class and enjoying that superior stronghold as well.

 

Spells are good in IE games, it actually makes you feel like you are in a believable world where people fear wizards for a reason. In so many games lore says Wizards/Mages are this and that and they turn out pathetic. In IE games they are just as dangerous as lore says they are.

 

Basilisks are a good point, I always hated their AI which could not recognize that you are immune to their gaze and would not tell them to bite you instead. As a creature of at least animal intelligence it can recognize when its main weapon is not working. It does not know why but it should be intelligent enough to either bite or run away.

[Doppelschwert]

And Imprison is easily reversed with Freedom spell. What, you don't have it? Why are are you attacking someone with Imprison then?

 

Because there is no way to know which spells the enemy has until fighting against them, apart from meta-knowledge. You could always have these kind of counterspells memorized out of paranoia, but then again, you are sacrificing spell slots for the rest of the 80% of battles where the spell is not cast by the enemy.

 

Apart from that, consider that in an actual ADnD game, strong spells require materials to be cast which are often rare and expensive for higher level spells. This restriction balances the strong but occasional spellcasting, but it is not implemented in any of the IE games, so spells tend to be way stronger than they were supposed to be in the original material. Lore dictates that wizards are powerful, but also that they spent most of their time to research spells and searching for components. There is some kind of trade off which makes it ok, but that's not in any of the IE games, basically stripping all disadvantages from them.

[Seari]

Right, because you can't memorize freedom and rest after a battle. git gud mate

[archangel979]

 

And Imprison is easily reversed with Freedom spell. What, you don't have it? Why are are you attacking someone with Imprison then?

 

Because there is no way to know which spells the enemy has until fighting against them, apart from meta-knowledge. You could always have these kind of counterspells memorized out of paranoia, but then again, you are sacrificing spell slots for the rest of the 80% of battles where the spell is not cast by the enemy.

 

Apart from that, consider that in an actual ADnD game, strong spells require materials to be cast which are often rare and expensive for higher level spells. This restriction balances the strong but occasional spellcasting, but it is not implemented in any of the IE games, so spells tend to be way stronger than they were supposed to be in the original material. Lore dictates that wizards are powerful, but also that they spent most of their time to research spells and searching for components. There is some kind of trade off which makes it ok, but that's not in any of the IE games, basically stripping all disadvantages from them.

 

What are you talking about. If you are at levels that you have a wizard with access to freedom you can expect enemies with most powerful lvl 9 spell. Not having Freedom ready and complaining about Imprisonment does not compute. And as said, you can rest as cast Freedom than. I just saved my sorcerer from Feeblemind that way in IWDEE two days ago (and found a bug where one spell that says it removes Feeblemind does not actually do that).

And those spell component restriction are not needed in IE games because wizards lack so many powerful spells like Teleport, Fly and the rest. Not to mention you got no chance to hit a Improved Invisible Fly wizard without see invisibility while in IE you just get a small penalty to hit.

Also IE games are much more combat heavy than PnP and you got no scouting abilities with your wizard. Normally you would send magical scouts and then research your enemies, while the IE games don't allow you that.

[archangel979]

Oh and setting up Contingencies and Sequencers in IE games and NWN and running into situations where they are useful or saved you felt like you are the smartest guy on the planet. No other game ever gave me this feeling.

And I am not talking about putting two magic missiles in sequencers but setting up Stoneskin and Shadowdoor to activate once your health dropped below 50%.

[Doppelschwert]

Right, because you can't memorize freedom and rest after a battle. git gud mate

 

Thanks for being needlessly condescending. I know that you can revert the spell effect after the battle. How does that help you during the battle, however? Your guy gets teleported away, deal with it - that's what the game is like.

If you want your guy to be back during the battle, you either have it memorized or you don't. If you don't know if the enemy has access to the spell, you memorize it in case he does and if he does, good for you, if not, spellslot wasted.

And that's true for all hard counters. Either they are applicable or spell slot wasted.

[Seari]

Scrolls, buy them. Besides, not a lot of enemies can cast imprisonment.

[Mr. Magniloquent]

So does everyone just want to bicker, or would they like to discuss the actual level of appropriate balance?

 

Consider this table as reference. Each has the endurance displayed for each level for each durability type (low, average, high, very high). To determine the total health per day, multiply it by that class's modifer. For example, Monks have "High" endurance, and use a modifier of x5. At a neutral constitution, this would give them a daily health of 1540. Again, this is for illustrative purposes.

 

Now look at the damage tables I have arranged. They are setup to use a default hit quality distribution of 5% miss, 45% graze, 45% hit, and 5% critical. This is all relative of course, and the wizard's accuracy outcomes would be lower, as they have "Low" starting accuracy.

 

 

The table with reference as to damage per spell level is at the bottom. They are setup so that their power scales linearly with level. The three large tables above them are the total damage output based on the hit quality distribution table whether the damage rolls are lowest, average, or highest possible. In the bottom right corner, you can see the damage output to total health (using a monk as comparison) are very close. This ratio stays fair intact even below level 20 comparisons, because all scales were linear matches to the endurance progression.

 

At first, a health to damage ratio of 6:7 (high) or even 8:7 (average) might seem a bit much, but take into account that these values do not take damage resistance or damage threshold into account. Furthermore, every single spell cast by a wizard would need to be a damage devoted spell. When factoring those considerations, it's clear to see that the total actual damage output would be much lower than represented here.

 

Even still, I feel like these values make wizard damage more meaningful, consistent, and ensure that they have a relative "adventuring day" very similar to any warrior class. That was one of my fundamental efforts in achieving balance. As a note, just like outlined in the full paper, these values are balanced through a spell point system where each spell has a casting cost equal to its level. That table is provided to the left. What's good about this, is that if a player wants to cast non-stop all day with lower spells or reserve themselves for major actions, they can. Either way, (before DR & DT) total damage output potential is the same.

 

 

What do you guys think of these damage figures? Do they feel appropriate?

[Stun]

Thanks for being needlessly condescending. I know that you can revert the spell effect after the battle. How does that help you during the battle, however?

If you want your guy to be back during the battle, you either have it memorized or you don't. If you don't know if the enemy has access to the spell, you memorize it in case he does and if he does, good for you, if not, spellslot wasted.

 

And that's true for all hard counters. Either they are applicable or spell slot wasted.

For the 3rd time... there's a counter to EVERYTHING in BG2.

 

To protect against Imprisonment during a battle, any intelligent mage will cast Spell Immunity (abjuration). It will grant you immunity to imprisonment for many, many rounds. It's a 5th level spell, which means your mage/wild mage/sorcerer will have access to it (many copies of it, even) several dozen hours before ever facing anything that can toss an imprisonment at him.

 

And in case you're thinking to yourself: "well, it seem silly to waste a spell slot on a spell that will only come in handy in very rare (almost never) instances when someone might Imprison you".... Nope. Spell Immunity has several uses in BG2. A good mage will always have it at hand anyway. The fact that you can use it to protect you from Imprisonment is actually kind of trivial in the grand scheme of things. When I play a mage in BG2, I typically find myself using its enchantment version right at the outset of any major battle because I dislike getting disabled by mind effecting spells.

 

But I digress. Here I am ranting again...in an obnoxiously offensive debate that shouldn't be happening. There is no comparison between BG2's magic system and PoE's "magic" system. One is gloriously awe inspiring, while the other is an insult to the very concept of "magic" in a fantasy RPG.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I have to wonder if people actually played the IE games, tried out the different spells, read the spell descriptions or even understood what the spell descriptions meant and how effective they are in the game, especially the end game. But then I've already come across someone who couldn't understand the difference between dispel and remove magic. So it's no surprise there are people arguing they can't work out how to counter an imprison spell or wasting a precious slot. No there's no wasting slots when there's quite a lot of low to mid level spells that are not just useful but also very good to use in the end game of BG2 and ToB.

[Stun]

What do you guys think of these damage figures? Do they feel appropriate?

I suppose. But we're quibbling over pennies in a room full of $100 bills. IMO, Spells should not be governed by the accuracy stat. magic is not a sword, or a bow. It's MAGIC. There is already enough cost incurred with it (casting instances are limited; casting can be interrupted; opponents get saving throws)

 

Until the delivery system is fixed, any discussion about what the spells actually do is kinda premature.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Stun