Saving the Wizard Class

[archangel979]

 

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.

 

Spell Immunity is kind of required to take down Kangaxx

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Spell Immunity is kind of required to take down Kangaxx

 

Actually, it is not. For the price of one scroll and one staff (in vanilla BG2), a level eight fighter can defeat The Almighty Kangaxx. Mind you, it was contrived as an insanely difficult boss to be a homage to Gary Gygax. It's an aside of the game, something that was never meant to be fair. It doesn't even matter to PoE. Hard counters will never happen because of Mr. Sawyer. Don't bother arguing, you've already been delivered what you're debating over. Does magic in PoE really feel better than in BG2?

 

Anyway...back to a conversation relevant to this game.

 

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.

 

You might as well walk away now then. That aspect is most certainly not going to change at all. What is your complaint with the accuracy system though? The saving throw that enemies get essentially is the accuracy. The wizard's accuracy must overcome a defense of the opponent, whether that be Fortitude, Reflex, Will, or Deflection. That's not really any different than D&D 3.0 Edition.

 

The problems with this resolution system are in "quibbling over pennies" as it's the degrees of things like DT, DR, Damage:Hit Point ratios, spells per day, base class accuracy that are really mucking things up. The general mechanic, which is conceptually sound, is being mired by poor tuning. Believe me that I echo your opinions both on the BG spell casting and it's comparison to the PoE "spell casting". Right now PoE spell casting is a joke that nobody is laughing at. I resent it.

 

To remedy that problem though, an amicable foundation must be set before we can even approach getting better spell design. Once a fundamental power curve and standardized intervals are established, spells can actually be created in a sensible, consistent, and superior fashion. You will not get better spells until the full scope of the class's output and features have been settled. It's the very reason why I started this thread. I wanted to get this conversation going, because it's painfully obvious Obsidian hasn't.

[IRMA]

This game was backed so much because obsidian said itll be successor to infinitz games. And those games big point of interest for MANY people were powerful mages. Whatever the **** sawyer wants in his dream game can **** off since the game people backed was successor to infinity stuff.

[Gfted1]

The wizard's accuracy must overcome a defense of the opponent, whether that be Fortitude, Reflex, Will, or Deflection. That's not really any different than D&D 3.0 Edition.

I was under the impression that first the spell had to "hit", then it has to overcome the various DT/DR/Resistances. Same as melee attacks. Is that not the case?

[Mr. Magniloquent]

The wizard's accuracy must overcome a defense of the opponent, whether that be Fortitude, Reflex, Will, or Deflection. That's not really any different than D&D 3.0 Edition.

I was under the impression that first the spell had to "hit", then it has to overcome the various DT/DR/Resistances. Same as melee attacks. Is that not the case?

 

It's one roll. Accuracy is compared against a defense statistic. That difference is then added to your d100 roll, which determines the hit quality type (miss, graze, hit, critical). Damage threshold and damage resistance are then applied to the outcome (if applicable). So:

 

First, the Accuracy is determined. While this does determine if it hits, anything that does strike uses this same value for determining ultimate damage. (Accuracy - Defense + d100 Roll) Let's say that this outcome was a graze. The damage would then be calculated at: Damage Roll - 50% - Damage Threshold - Damage Resistance Percentage. Anything that does not use damage merely omits the Damage Threshold and Resistance subtractions.

 

It is all one roll though. Just think of a miss as a -100% modifier, rather than a separate ranged touch attack type component.

*Edited for clarity.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Mr. Magniloquent

[rheingold]

This game was backed so much because obsidian said itll be successor to infinitz games. And those games big point of interest for MANY people were powerful mages. Whatever the **** sawyer wants in his dream game can **** off since the game people backed was successor to infinity stuff.

LOL, really, I must have missed the requirement that there be completely overpowered god like mages when I signed up to back POE. My bad

[Seari]

here we go again

[Stun]

 

This game was backed so much because obsidian said itll be successor to infinitz games. And those games big point of interest for MANY people were powerful mages. Whatever the **** sawyer wants in his dream game can **** off since the game people backed was successor to infinity stuff.

LOL, really, I must have missed the requirement that there be completely overpowered god like mages when I signed up to back POE. My bad

 

Maybe you did. Obsidian gets points for clever use of vague language in a sales pitch in any case. From the Kickstarter:

 

Project Eternity will take the central hero, memorable companions and the epic exploration of Baldur’s Gate, add in the fun, intense combat and dungeon diving of Icewind Dale, and tie it all together with the emotional writing and mature thematic exploration of Planescape: Torment..

 

 

^That's suitably vague and open to all sorts of interpretation... enough to keep a semantics discussion alive 2+ years later. But there are 2 things here that are crystal clear and NOT disputable in the slightest: 1) Magic is purposely overpowered in all the IE games. It's what made combat in them intense and fun; 2) Obsidian name-dropped the IE games in their very mission statement on day 1.

 

They didn't need to explicitly promise an overpowered magic system, because such a promise was clearly implied. And that is why we've got a few people here today calling them out for it - and why it's reasonable to do so, given that the magic system they have developed for PoE is so intentionally anti-IE spirit from the ground up.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

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.

I don't understand. You don't think it would improve it at all, but you'd specifically make Minor Sequencer store an additional spell? Why would you do it, then? Just for the hell of it? And if something like that wouldn't be an improvement, then what even constitutes the opposite of an improvement? If it only stored 1 spell, instead of 2, would that be worse?

[Lephys]

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

There's a difference between gutting something, and just starting with something else, entirely, in the first place.

[Stun]

 

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.

I don't understand. You don't think it would improve it at all, but you'd specifically make Minor Sequencer store an additional spell? Why would you do it, then?

 

Uniformity. Because its two big brothers (spell sequencer and spell trigger) both store 3 spells, and because minor sequencer is a 4th level spell and thus must compete with utility powerhouses like Stoneskin, Improved invisibility and teleport field.

 

And if something like that wouldn't be an improvement, then what even constitutes the opposite of an improvement? If it only stored 1 spell, instead of 2, would that be worse?

Yes, but not for the reason you're implying. If it only stored one spell it would be a misnomer (a sequence of...1?) It would also be worthless, since it'd be silly to use a 4th level spell slot store a single 1st/2nd level spell. Edited November 13, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

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)

Obviously, in real life, magic isn't aimed. So making it thus in the game would make much more sense. u_u

 

Uniformity. Because its two big brothers (spell sequencer and spell trigger) both store 3 spells, and because minor sequencer is a 4th level spell and thus must compete with utility powerhouses like Stoneskin, Improved invisibility and teleport field.

So uniformity isn't any better or any worse than non-uniformity? The spell wouldn't be better able to compete with those other spells due to the example change?

 

Yes, but not for the reason you're implying. If it only stored one spell it would be a misnomer (a sequence of...1?) It would also be worthless, since it'd be silly to use a 4th level spell slot store a single 1st/2nd level spell.

The misnomer I get. But, here's what I don't get... Are you saying that yes, it would be worse, but not for the reason I'm implying? (What reason is that? Sincere question)

Edited November 13, 2014 by Lephys

[Stun]

Obviously, in real life, magic isn't aimed. So making it thus in the game would make much more sense. u_u

The 'realism' argument? What does that have to do with anything?

 

 

So uniformity isn't any better or any worse than non-uniformity?

When the scope of the non-uniformity is a single spell out of a pool of about 350, Yes. I believe that registers as a giant 'who cares!' on the spell system judgment scale.

 

The spell wouldn't be better able to compete with those other spells due to the example change?

It competes fine in its present state already. Don't assume my opinion of Minor Sequencer is shared by even a notable minority. It's not. I have met people who have flat out told me that minor sequencer is comparatively overpowered at level 4. After all, a 12th level wizard can load it up and fire it off with 2 save-or-die spells (chromatic orb x2).

 

But lets not lose the point. My initial post on the subject is changes I'd propose based on my personal tastes. I am NOT claiming that the spell's current state is flawed. At all.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

The 'realism' argument? What does that have to do with anything?

I was being sarcastic, to illustrate that "Because it's magic!" provides absolutely no basis for why magic should not be aimed. Keep in mind that that works for the "shouldness" of it being aimed, too. There's just no restriction either way. It's a completely fictional thing based on nothing. So there's nothing to really point to and say "See, this is how it should function!"

 

... Did you really think I was seriously trying to argue realism... for magic? Surely not.

 

When the scope of the non-uniformity is a single spell out of a pool of about 350, Yes. I believe that registers as a giant 'who cares!' on the spell system judgment scale.

You didn't answer my question, really. But, rolling with this response, at what point would it start actually mattering? 300 spells? 100 spells? 10 spells? Under what circumstances do completely relativity-neutral "changes" become improvements/worsenings?

 

It competes fine in its present state already.

Again, that doesn't answer my question. I'd very much like it if you'd be so kind as to answer my exact questions.

 

But lets not lose the point. My initial post on the subject is changes I'd propose based on my personal tastes. I am NOT claiming that the spell's current state is flawed. At all.

I don't know why you're so afraid of somehow being entrapped or something. The fact that you perceive no relative betterment from such a wide array of changes intrigues me, and I'm simply curious as to what criteria constitute any degree of relative betterment or worsening in your mind.

 

We're both looking at the same things, so understanding the differences in how we perceive these things should aid our ability to discuss them.

 

Already, I can pretty much tell you that our given meanings of the word "flawed" are different. And I understand that, which is why I'm not about to twist your arm until you use the word "flawed" to describe anything. I get that you're saying the system was fine the way it was.

[Stun]

I was being sarcastic, to illustrate that "Because it's magic!" provides absolutely no basis for why magic should not be aimed. Keep in mind that that works for the "shouldness" of it being aimed, too. There's just no restriction either way. It's a completely fictional thing based on nothing. So there's nothing to really point to and say "See, this is how it should function!"

I'm sorry Lephys, but try as I might, I cannot get myself to accept such a dull, modern-gamer's mindset.

 

Magic is special. Magic deserves its own set of rules. Magic is different from standard fighter weaponry. It just IS. There's no reason, other than the soulless desire for Balance and to appease today's Zero IQ console gamer, for it to be governed by the same system that dictates the hit/miss/graze/crit of a f*cking sword or Axe. Josh Sawyer is tragically wrong in his viewpoint on this matter, and so are you.

 

PS: And there certainly IS something to point to that says: "see? that's how it's done". In fact there's 5 things to point to.

 

1) Baldur's Gate 1

2) Baldur's Gate 2

3) Icewind Dale 1

4) Icewind Dale 2

5) Planescape: Torment

 

So there.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Stun

[anameforobsidian]

The wizard class isn't the only one with magic.  Most of the other classes have magic.

[Lephys]

Alright, so you aren't going to answer my questions. Well, that's sad... 8(

 

The definitiveness of the phrase "that's how it's done" aside, that's not the same point I was making. I said there's no reference for how magic should function. Not "there's nothing to reference to support my own opinion of what a good magic system is."

 

I mean, if those 5 games are something to point to as a reference for magic, then what did the developers of those games reference before those games were made? D&D? Okay, what about before D&D was created? Exactly.

 

Also, you're making everything very difficult by arbitrarily grouping SO many individual criteria together into these giant points, and attributing them to anything anyone says about the individual parts. I didn't say it's perfectly perfect that spells function along the same attack resolution as non-magic things. But I do understand the mechanical abstraction at play, there, and the fact that difference can easily be achieved through factors like different defenses being targeted (functions much the same way as saves in D&D), numbers being tweaked for spells, etc. There's nothing inherent to the mathematical relationship of Attack Resolution that prevents spells and swords from not working in identical manners.

 

But, what I DID say was that there's nothing stupid or wrong about the idea of spells having accuracy. I mean, for that matter, if they don't have accuracy, why would you even need line of sight to cast anything? I should just imagine you, and if you're not too far away, the spell should cast and strike you.

[Yonjuro]

 I agree that wizards need help. A few observations:

 

1. Friendly fire:

 

...

 

The biggest problem I have with the wizard class is the lack of clarity as to whether spells will hit allies or not. The language in spell descriptions is ambiguous and in previous betas (I haven't cast many spells since the first) has been outright inaccurate. The benefits of spells potentially hitting enemies has never been outweighed by the risk of them potentially hitting allies and that is why I almost never use them.

 

 I agree with this point. The spell descriptions should be explicit about this.

 

 

2. A second point is that it is difficult to tell which status effects are applied to enemies (or party members), when they are applied and what happens as a result. E.g., in the IE games, the spells melf's acid arrow, confusion, domination, horror etc. had obvious effects. In PoE, the different spells probably affect a character's attack resolution in some non-obvious way (umm, yippee?). Some of this difference is on purpose, a design choice of how screwed a character is allowed to be based on a spell effect  but some of it is just lack of obvious feedback.  

 

 

3. Damage: Actually, BB Wizard does a surprising amount of damage. I never really noticed until I looked at the character sheets from a recent (333 build) save and saw that BB wizard had the highest damage output. I was surprised. The game really needs to give better visual feedback about this.

 

4. Currently combat as a whole feels too much like an angle grinder fight; whoever gets ground down to nothing first, loses. The magic system is a different grit on the grinding wheel. It needs to be more than that; I think a lot of what needs to happen is look and feel kinds of things. E.g., if one spell causes a fear status and another causes a diseased status, those things need to look very different and they need to have different effects on the character's abilities. Both of those differences, how it looks and what it does, need to be obvious in the game.

 

e: formatting

Edited November 14, 2014 by Yonjuro

[Stun]

I said there's no reference for how magic should function.

And I corrected you.

 

There IS a reference. And Obsidian chose to cite it when they asked us for funding. 5 games. They referenced them by name.

 

I mean, if those 5 games are something to point to as a reference for magic, then what did the developers of those games reference before those games were made? D&D? Okay, what about before D&D was created?

Tolkein.

 

Not sure how your questions can be answered any more directly than this. We are discussing fantasy tradition. But the problem is that the community here is multi-generational and "tradition" to a younger gamer means games with watered down, "pew-pew" magic, like what we see in WoW, Dragon Age, Skyrim, Witcher, etc. Such gamers cannot conceive of anything else. In their minds Magic is nothing more than another attack-form.... equal to a fighter swinging his battle Axe, or an Archer shooting arrows from his bow, only more colorful.

 

But the rest of us remember back when magic was much, much more.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Stun

[Jon of the Wired]

 

I said there's no reference for how magic should function.

And I corrected you.

 

There IS a reference. And Obsidian chose to cite it when they asked us for funding. 5 games. They referenced them by name.

 

I mean, if those 5 games are something to point to as a reference for magic, then what did the developers of those games reference before those games were made? D&D? Okay, what about before D&D was created?

Tolkein.

 

Not sure how your questions can be answered any more directly than this. We are discussing fantasy tradition. But the problem is that the community here is multi-generational and "tradition" to a younger gamer means games with watered down, "pew-pew" magic, like what we see in WoW, Dragon Age, Skyrim, Witcher, etc. Such gamers cannot conceive of anything else. In their minds Magic is nothing more than another attack-form.... equal to a fighter swinging his battle Axe, or an Archer shooting arrows from his bow, only more colorful.

 

But the rest of us remember back when magic was much, much more.

 

 

This is going to be a bit pedantic, but D&D magic actually doesn't owe anything to Tolkein (the creators of D&D somewhat famously didn't actually care for Tolkein much). The magic system in D&D is based on how magic works in the Dying Earth series by Jack Vance (hence the term Vancian magic). Though, to be fair, the implementation in D&D is a fairly loose translation of that system.

 

I think there's far too many and varied depictions of magic for it to make sense to cite "tradition" as a source for the one true way magic should work. I also think the slide into "pew-pew" magic in modern games is a bit sad, but there's really only so much mystery and ineffability you're going to be able to capture in a system of rules that has to be implemented on a computer. Regardless, I think PoE actually suffers from this problem less than most modern games.

[archangel979]

The stream showed us the crappyness of wizard. Well he got lucky with criticals but otherwise spells didn't do much. Also boring spells that all just do damage, where is the Sleep spell? Where is Charm Person?

[anameforobsidian]

The stream showed us the crappyness of wizard. Well he got lucky with criticals but otherwise spells didn't do much. Also boring spells that all just do damage, where is the Sleep spell? Where is Charm Person?

Sleep,

Ciphers have more of the charm powers, and he also just chose a really boring selection of spells.  It would be just like if he inscribed armor, magic missile, and burning hands as a level one mage.

Edited November 14, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[archangel979]

 

The stream showed us the crappyness of wizard. Well he got lucky with criticals but otherwise spells didn't do much. Also boring spells that all just do damage, where is the Sleep spell? Where is Charm Person?

Sleep,

Ciphers have more of the charm powers, and he also just chose a really boring selection of spells.  It would be just like if he inscribed armor, magic missile, and burning hands as a level one mage.

 

Except in IE games he can choose Sleep and other interesting spells. Here he can only choose from what you call them "boring selection of spells". Edited November 14, 2014 by archangel979

[Quetzalcoatl]

 

 

The stream showed us the crappyness of wizard. Well he got lucky with criticals but otherwise spells didn't do much. Also boring spells that all just do damage, where is the Sleep spell? Where is Charm Person?

Sleep,

Ciphers have more of the charm powers, and he also just chose a really boring selection of spells.  It would be just like if he inscribed armor, magic missile, and burning hands as a level one mage.

 

Except in IE games he can choose Sleep and other interesting spells. Here he can only choose from what you call them "boring selection of spells".

 

He just linked to a wizard sleep spell.

 

You're also forgetting that D&D sleep spell was useless past the first few levels, since it was capped by hit dice. Not what I'd call an interesting spell.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Quetzalcoatl

[IndiraLightfoot]

Quetzalcoatl: That's not correct.

 

See link:

http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/16524/spells-and-hit-dice

 

In PnP, it affects 4+3 lvl HD, but in BG it has been simplified to "monsters above level 4 is immune".

BG1 is for a party of level 1-8.

 

I have used it extensively when playing BG 1: EE this year. I'd say, it's one of the best spells around in that game.